I am fascinated by the philosophy of ethics, ever since I took a course in it in undergraduate school. This is partly because I enjoy thinking about complex systems (which partly explains why I ended up in Neurology as my specialty). I also greatly enjoy logic, and particularly deconstructing arguments (my own and others) to identify their logical essence and see if or where they go wrong.

In a previous post I wrote about the philosophy of morality. This spawned over 400 comments (so far), so it seems we could use another post to reset the conversation.

The discussion is between objective vs subjective morality, mostly focusing around a proponent of objective morality (commenter nym of Zach). Here I will lay out my position for a philosophical basis of morality and explain why I think objective morality is not only unworkable, it’s a fiction.

First, let’s define “morality” and discuss why it is needed. Morality is a code of behavior that aspires to some goal that is perceived as good. The question at hand is where do morals and morality come from. I think this question is informed by the question of why we need morals in the first place.

I maintain that morals can only be understood in the context of the moral actor. Humans, for example, have emotions and feelings. We care about stuff, about our own well being, about those who love, about our “tribe.” We also have an evolved sense of morality, such as the concepts of reciprocity and justice.

Further, humans are social animals, and in fact we have no choice but to share this planet with each other. Our behavior, therefore, affects others. If we had no cares at all about what happens to us or others, or our actions had no affect on anything but ourselves, then there would be no need for morality, and in fact morality would have no meaning.

We can take as empirical facts, however, that humans have feelings and our actions affect others – these are therefore well-founded premises for a moral system. Philosophers have tried to derive from there further premises as a starting point for a moral system. The goal is to derive the most fundamental principles, or determine the most reasonable first principles, and then proceed carefully from there.

Much of the previous discussion has centered around the validity of these moral principles, such as “harm is bad” and “it is better to be fair than unfair.” Are these “self evident,” can they be objectively proved, or can they be derived from something that can be proven?

I think, in part, they are taken as self-evident and given, but that does not mean they are entirely without justification, because they are rooted, as is the need for morality itself, in the human condition. Because humans are feeling social animals, we need morality, and certain principles are necessary for a moral system for a social feeling species (such as reciprocity). This is partly a logical statement, for without reciprocity you don’t have a moral system that helps us live together (again – the very reason for the system in the first place). Also, these principles can be evaluated empirically, in terms of their universality, their neurological basis, and the effects of their implementation in a society.

Because we are talking about values, a moral principle can never be a completely empirical fact, and therefore cannot be completely determined by scientific investigation. That science can determine morals is the position of Sam Harris and others, which I have rejected in a previous post (echoing the thoughts of Massimo Pigliucci, a professional philosopher).

Much of the prior discussion came to an impasse over this issue – are moral first principles, therefore, objective or subjective. This, I maintain, is a false dichotomy. They are complex, with some subjective aspects (the values) and some objective aspects (explorations of their universality and implications).

Further, this is the best that human can do. What is the other option?

Well, there are those who maintain that the other option is an objective source of morality. In my personal experience, everyone that has made taken this position with me used their religious faith in God as their “objective” source of morality – a “lawgiver.”

There are also those who (probably unintentionally) argue that the laws of nature dictate a certain morality. This is the “it’s not natural” argument, which in my opinion is nothing but the naturalistic fallacy. This line of argument has mostly been rejected by philosophers as an is/ought confusion. Just because nature is a certain way, that does not mean it is a basis for human morality. Even human nature does not dictate morality, although at least it can reasonably inform it (as I describe above).

Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.

The notion of an objective morality assumes that morality is something that can make sense apart from the context in which it is used (in our case, human society). Is it objectively wrong, according to some moral law of the universe, to harm another creature? If you try to justify this moral position, then you are actually engaging in moral philosophy – the complex and messy human understanding of morals.

This is what leads proponents of objective morality to the conclusion that objective morals require a lawgiver (actually, I think they work backward from their desire to prove a lawgiver, but that is a separate point). This does not solve the problem, however, just removes it one degree. How, then, does the lawgiver derive their morality? This leads to Euthyprho’s dilemma – are the morals of God right because God says so or does God say so because they are objectively right? Of course, it can be both, but that does not really solve anything. We are still left with the problem of what possible basis there can be for objective morality. If it’s not “God says so” then what is it?

One might argue that we should not worry our little primate brains about such problems and just listen to God, but this is unsatisfactory. This reduces all of morality down to one rule – do whatever God says.

There is also an unsolvable practical issue – no one has a direct line to God. There are those who claim to, but no one can demonstrate that they actually have objective access to the true moral rules of the lawgiver. In fact, different societies have all had their prophets claiming such access, and dispensing moral codes that are suspiciously primitive and derivative of their time and culture, and also incompatible with the moral codes dispensed by other prophets.

The only possible basis for preferring one set of “revealed” rules over another is faith. There is no way to resolve differences of such faith-based moral codes – it’s just faith vs faith. Any attempt to argue that one set of faith-based rules is superior to another again resorts to moral philosophy. Without some appeal to moral philosophy, what can people say except that their God and traditions are the True ones, and everyone else’s are false.

None of this, the objective moralist will argue, proves that there is no god or that there is no objective morality, but this is irrelevant (a non sequitur). The point is, even if there were, humans have no way to know about it in any verifiable way that can be universalized. This necessarily leads us to tribal warring over whose beliefs are correct?

Further, any tradition about what God’s morality is, is just that – a tradition. Adhering to such traditions can be nothing but an argument from authority, which further locks in whatever moral code is in the tradition to the time it was codified. This prevents any progress or evolution of human moral thinking. I guess the best we can do is wait for the invisible lawgiver in the sky to update us.

Conclusion

Moral philosophy is the only workable option for a human moral system. Philosophers have been thinking about and arguing about such moral systems since Aristotle, and have come quite far in working out how such systems can work. This is far preferable to a system based upon conflicting traditions about what an unprovable lawgiver allegedly told members of a primitive agrarian society about how he wants people to behave.

Having said that, however, I do think there is much wisdom to be had in the religious traditions of the world. Many moral philosophers did their thinking within a religious belief system, and we should not reject the fruits of their wisdom because they are couched in religious terms. Neither should we accept them. They should be evaluated on their own merits according to the best moral philosophy we have so far developed.

458 Responses to “Objective vs Subjective Morality”

One question. You say the following: “are moral first principles, therefore, objective or subjective. This, I maintain, is a false dichotomy. They are complex, with some subjective aspects (the values) and some objective aspects (explorations of their universality and implications)”

Surely if the values themselves are subjective then any implications arising from then are also subjective by nature?

FXP – No. You can, for example, examine a moral system for logical consistency vs self-contradiction. Consistency is an objective evaluation.

Also – universality is something that can be measured. You can ask, why is universality important, but that is already taken as a premise of morality in that we only need morality because we have to live with each other, so the moral system has to cover everyone or it doesn’t really address that need.

“We can take as empirical facts, however, that humans have feelings and our actions affect others – these are therefore well-founded premises for a moral system. ”

Nonsense, I have feelings that tell me to go steal everything I can get away with stealing and I don’t care what happens to others. I’m all good.

You said:
“I think, in part, they are taken as self-evident and given, but that does not mean they are entirely without justification, because they are rooted, as is the need for morality itself, in the human condition.”

Self evident? Many would say that the existence of God is self evident with just as much proof as you have provided. What exactly do you mean by the human condition? How does it justify your “self-evident” first principle?

You said:
“Also, these principles can be evaluated empirically, in terms of their universality, their neurological basis, and the effects of their implementation in a society.”

How would you evaluate these empirically in terms of there universality? Their neurological basis would be irrelevent.

You said:
“There is also an unsolvable practical issue – no one has a direct line to God. There are those who claim to, but no one can demonstrate that they actually have objective access to the true moral rules of the lawgiver.”

How does your concept of morality without a lawgiver free of this same problem. Do not philosophers disagree on morality? Which philosophers are right?

You said:
“This is far preferable to a system based upon conflicts traditions about what an unprovable lawgiver allegedly told members of a primitive agrarian society about how he wants people to behave.”

Preferrable to you, yes. 90+ % of everybody else would disagree. Why do you think your preferences are “better” than someone elses.

What is the purpose of this moral philosophy of which you speak? Is it simply to make suggestions for how to live a better life. This would not be universal morality which is what most people commmonly understand it to be.

If it is something that is used to judge others, there can be no justification for applying it universally unless there is some objective basis?

Atheists could solve their logical dilemma with morality by simply admitting that no authority->no morality. There is no basis for judging even the most heinous acts as wrong without an objective morality. It is interesting that you rarely hear that point made.

“I think, in part, they are taken as self-evident and given, but that does not mean they are entirely without justification, because they are rooted, as is the need for morality itself, in the human condition.”

First off, very well done post on a big topic. The only thing I would like to emphasize (since Zach seems to have a problem with this concept) is that these moral first principle are concepts that are discussed and debated first. Its not like they are assumed and that is the end of the discussion. He (Zach) seems to frame it in this fashion, and he thinks that when one another person comes along and disagrees with this principle, the whole thing falls apart. But of course that is not true.

“How does your concept of morality without a lawgiver free of this same problem. Do not philosophers disagree on morality? Which philosophers are right?”

Because disagreements can be worked out in theory and in practice with philosophy. If you think your morality is the only possible one because it is directly from the lawgiver, in theory there is no way to change that other than for you to throw the whole thing out. Of course in practice, they do change, but that is due to people changing their interpretation of what the lawgiver really says. This goes to show that all of this is coming from us humans no matter what you think

“Because disagreements can be worked out in theory and in practice with philosophy.”

How do you work them out. In science, you work them out by examining new evidence. Philosophy can not be held to the scientific method. Philosophy may evolve, but only because of changing opinions. There will be no new evidence to be had.

Nonsense, I have feelings that tell me to go steal everything I can get away with stealing and I don’t care what happens to others. I’m all good.

If you don’t care what happens to others then that makes you a sociopath. If everyone felt the same it would still be possible to derive a system of morality based upon our collective human condition, it would just be a particularly bad one. Luckily this is not the case.

I would like to hear commentary on the subject of absolutes. I think there is little room for suggesting anything we’re discussing here can be absolute. Consistency is not necessarily absolute, for example. I would say my neck functions properly and consistently in every range of motion expected from it. The fact that I occasionally get a “crick” in it doesn’t change that.

It seems to me this is a sticking point for many statements made recently.

@ SARA: “The fact that we have not yet found any completely agreed upon morality also points to a lack of universality.”

To take your idea one step farther, moral standards have changed dramatically over time and continue to change, which is a strong argument against some sort of Objective, Universal Moral Code from God or some other source. If Morality were truly objective and come from God, or some other universal source, they would be stable over time.

NAA wrote:”Nonsense, I have feelings that tell me to go steal everything I can get away with stealing and I don’t care what happens to others. I’m all good.”

Non sequitur. The premise is that people have feelings. What those feelings are is a separate question. The fact that we have feelings means that some outcomes will be preferable to us. The purpose of a moral system is to prmote those outcomes.

Further, your point about stealing ignores the second premise – that we need to live together. You may like stealing, but other people do not like being stolen from. So how do we device a moral system that accounts for both of these conflicting desires? We need rules to figure out how to resolve such conflicts. For example, we can apply principles of ownership, non maleficence, and the general rule that negative rights (the right not to have something done to you) supercedes positive rights (the right to do something).

So you are not “all good.”

NAA wrote: “Self evident? Many would say that the existence of God is self evident with just as much proof as you have provided. What exactly do you mean by the human condition? How does it justify your “self-evident” first principle?”

Non sequitur. You missed the part about later justification. No one is saying that we take our gut feelings and run with them. They are a starting point, then we try to justify them. I can justify the notion that harm is bad. Can you justify your belief in God?

The human condition is the collective feelings, nature, and essence of what is it to be a person living in the world. Again – the context of morality.

NAA wrote:”How would you evaluate these empirically in terms of there universality? Their neurological basis would be irrelevent.”

Psychologists do surveys and experiments all the time evaluating what percentage of people hold certain beliefs or engage in certain bahaviors with what invluences, including cultural influences. That is empirical data. The neurological basis does not determine moral values, but it is not irrelevant. It is useful to know, for example, what elements of brain function are being engaged in certain behaviors and situations. This does give us insight into why people make certain decisions.

NAA wrote: “How does your concept of morality without a lawgiver free of this same problem. Do not philosophers disagree on morality? Which philosophers are right?”

This is a main point of the post – Philosophers have a system by which they can evaluate moral thinking. It’s not perfect, it’s complex, philosophers of course can disagree, but there are rules, the application of logic, informed by science, etc. This is simply NOT equivalent to a faith-based system in which morals are whatever one subculture says their god dictates. Very different. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the post again.

NAA wrote:”Preferrable to you, yes. 90+ % of everybody else would disagree. Why do you think your preferences are “better” than someone elses.”

I laid out the very specific reasons why it is preferable. I disagree with the assertion that 90% of everybody would disagree (now that is an assertion needing evidence). Not everyon with a reilgious belief thinks their reilgious should be the basis of everyone’s morality. Further, there are almost 200 religions making up that 90% and they have no way to resolve their differences, and so using a secular philosophy-based system makes sense. People can be religious and respect religious freedom.

In any case, this is a non sequitur- and appeal to popularity. I laid out the reasons why a philosophical system works and a faith-based system does not.

NAA wrote: “Atheists could solve their logical dilemma with morality by simply admitting that no authority->no morality. There is no basis for judging even the most heinous acts as wrong without an objective morality. It is interesting that you rarely hear that point made.:

No – that is your premise, but it is not reasonable, and certainly has not been demonstrated. I do not need a magic authority to tell me that if I expect to have my right respected I should respect the rights of others. I can work that out for myself, thanks.

It is amazing that in order to maintain the position that divinely imposed morals are necessary the apologists for this position must maintain that humans are incapable of working out even the most basic and obvious moral principles for themselves.

JJ – regarding absolutes – there are no absolutes when it comes to humans, because we are flawed and have a limited perspective. There are no absolutes in science either, for that reason (there is always a frame of reference).

Likewise, NAA says that science progresses through empirical evidence, and philosophy cannot. This is both simplistic and wrong. First, science is a system for evaluating empirical claims. Philosophy is not – so they do not hold to the same criteria. Philosophy is more a system of logic, although it is often based or informed by empirical claims. For example, if a philosophy follows to a certain conclusion that can be empirically tested, then that line of reasoning is subject to evidence.

Further, science is dependant upon philosophy – the philosophy of science and epistemology.

Philosophy, as a system of logic applicable to the real empirical world, is testable as a system of logic, which means it can be held to logical criteria.

To put the comments of NAA and others into context – this is all best understood as a desperate attempt for false equivalency between their faith and anything that might challenge it. If it all comes down to faith, then they can say they prefer their faith and there is no reason to prefer any other beliefs (whether evolution or moral philosophy). The denialism and logical errors required to make this argument, however, should be obvious to most people following these comments.

Zach and NAA, the problem you are having is that you are treating your conceptualization of morality as if it is something it is not.

You maintain that MORALITY is objective and comes from a law giver. Fine. But the model of morality that you instantiate in your brain is not (and cannot be) the perfect MORALITY that the hypothetical Law Giver has tried to convey to lowly and imperfect humans.

I appreciate that you want your internal sense of morality to match the MORALITY of the Law Giver, but as Dr Novella has pointed out many times, you don’t know how to do that. You don’t have access to the “source code” of the universal MORALITY that you think the Law Giver has produced, and you would admit that even if you had that “source code”, you could not understand it to the level of detail that the Law Giver does.

If you don’t have access to the perfect and objective MORALITY of the Law Giver because your brain can’t hold it all, what choice do you have? Default to might makes right? Default to personal selfishness and greed? Default to moral relativism?

The reasonable person would try to figure out what would constitute a universal MORALITY if there was one, and try to approximate it as best as their feeble brain would allow while making provision for not acting in questionable circumstances and updating it over time.

This is the process that Dr Novella is trying to accomplish. Start with fundamental premises that seem to be pretty universal and figure out what those premises imply for actions under certain circumstances.

What do you suggest? Start with what ever ideas feel right for you? We know that self-interest is going to generate a cognitive bias that over values benefits to the self, while under valuing benefits to others. One can try to avoid the cognitive bias of self-interest by abstractly removing the self from the thought experiments used to evaluate moral value. This is how human justice systems try to work, they have a disinterested party, a judge, sit in judgment. We know that “justice” often doesn’t happen when interested parties sit in judgment over issues that affect them.

Once you have any morality system, albeit an imperfect moral system, how do you upgrade it? By sitting around and waiting for the Law Giver to put ideas into your head? How can you know if those ideas are from the Law Giver and not from somewhere else? Or are not cognitive bias generated by self-interest? Look in an old book? How do you know that the words in the book are from the Law Giver? How do you know that the human being who wrote the words in that old book was not experiencing cognitive bias from self-interest? What basis is there for accepting that ancient unknown self-proclaimed religious people actually heard directly from the Law Giver, accurately recorded what the Law Giver said, and that each person in the information chain of custody has accurately and precisely remembered, recorded, transmitted and translated that information without error?

We know that the only way to ensure that a process is reliable is by ensuring that every step in the process is reliable. The only way to do that is to explicitly examine every step. That is exactly how Dr Novella upgrades his conceptualization of morality, by going back to the first premises and examining every step in the path from those premises to the final evaluation of the moral value of an action. You can’t do that with Laws from a Law Giver.

“How do you work them out. In science, you work them out by examining new evidence. Philosophy can not be held to the scientific method. Philosophy may evolve, but only because of changing opinions. There will be no new evidence to be had.”

Who says that philosophy is not informed by evidence?, because that is not correct. Both science and philosphy, and as a result our understanding of ourselves and the universe progress over time. So your characterization of mere arbitrary changing opinions is inaccurate, from a big picture perspective and in general, there is progress in the changes

NAA wrote: “This is true, but just because moral standards have changed doesn’t mean morality has changed. It means that humans are imperfect in understanding and in practice of morality.”

And that understanding and practice of morality is moral philosophy. Congratulations.

The point also stands – the moral philosophy of those culture claiming god as their source is indistinguishable from culturally determined moral philosophizing, thoroughly embedded in the time and place of the so-called prophets who claim god as their source.

Re: The Moral Landscape. It wasn’t great. Though I haven’t been impressed with Sam Harris’s writing since his first couple of works, which I rather enjoyed – though possibly only because they gave a different perspective from those of heavy-going philosophers and scientists that I’d been reading before. However, in his defence (or, rather, to give him a fair hearing) I think his main argument stems from his conviction that morality should be defined as avoiding the maximum amount of suffering possible, and that if you insist that this is just his arbitrary definition of morality then his response is that, whatever you think you are talking about, it isn’t morality in any sense that he recognises it. So to the philosopher this is anathema because you’re arbitrarily defining one of the terms under debate, but I think most people would accept that as a fairly reasonable step.

The problem I’ve always had with the philosophy of morality is that the question “How should we live?” is inherently only half a question – it doesn’t make sense, to me at least, without the addendum “In order to achieve X”, for some X. And the argument over morality seems to centre around defining that X. So once we can define that X, getting there is (as Harris argues) simply a matter of science. But I don’t see any way in which our choice of X is anything but completely arbitrary, or dissolves into circularity. And the fact that our innate evolved sense of pleasure/disgust/fear/anger etc. tends to push us fairly unanimously in certain directions, that still doesn’t mean that following those impulses is any less arbitrary than throwing a die. So, in that respect, what Harris does is essentially what we all do when not engaging in philosophy, which is to set X = “the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people”.

Also, as Steve points out – even if we were certain that there were a god, that wouldn’t help one bit, because it would still be an arbitrary choice to align that X with the god’s desires. Even given Plato’s arguments in Euthyphro (btw typo), if that god is somehow following some underlying morality of the Universe (whatever that may mean – the concept is nonsense to me), then that means that the god is irrelevant to morality unless you’re arguing that it is the only route to learning that underlying truth. Which introduces the other issues Steve points out.

So I genuinely conclude that the actual term “morality” is meaningless, in the strong sense that people like AJ Ayer would have probably argued. YMMV

You say ‘we need morality’ as if first there were humans, and then they invented morality. I think basic morality is part of the human condition but difficult to put in words. Beyond that, good luck convincing the rest of the world to adopt a new moral system, especially if it doesn’t have anything supernatural. It may be worthwhile to try to describe that basic part that we have in common, in say the next 1000 years or so.

Fourier – what you say is reasonable to a point, but couple of quibbles:

Harris is following the ethical philosophy of consequentialism. But, there are other philosophies, deontological and virtue ethics. So you first have to argue for consequentialism, which is not generally accepted by philosophyers as a viable stand-alone ethical philosophy.

It is part of ethical philosophy, however, which gets us back to – science informs but does not determine ethics.

I would also disagree with the “throwing the dice” analogy. Again I thinkyou are falling into the trap of assuming that anything less than objective morality (which I agree, does not make any sense) is completely arbitrary. Having a subjective component to morality is not the same as arbitrary, which implies equivalency.

I would argue that morality only makes sense in the context of the moral actors, and therefore we can say as human moral actors certain moral principles are defensible and others are not.

You wrote:
“Non sequitur. The premise is that people have feelings. What those feelings are is a separate question. The fact that we have feelings means that some outcomes will be preferable to us. The purpose of a moral system is to prmote those outcomes.”

But why is that the basis of a moral system? That we have feelings does not justify a moral system. Those feelings could be irrelevant. In fact, they are irrelevant to me. Obviously you missed my point.

“Further, your point about stealing ignores the second premise – that we need to live together. You may like stealing, but other people do not like being stolen from. So how do we device a moral system that accounts for both of these conflicting desires? We need rules to figure out how to resolve such conflicts. For example, we can apply principles of ownership, non maleficence, and the general rule that negative rights (the right not to have something done to you) supercedes positive rights (the right to do something).”

Why do we need to live together? If I have the ability to evade the consequences of my actions I can take what I like. I don’t need the approval of any of you lousy folks. Now if you want your morality to be specific to you and those who agree with you, that is fine. There is nothing universal that you can derive from “people have feelings”.

“This is a main point of the post – Philosophers have a system by which they can evaluate moral thinking. It’s not perfect, it’s complex, philosophers of course can disagree, but there are rules, the application of logic, informed by science, etc. This is simply NOT equivalent to a faith-based system in which morals are whatever one subculture says their god dictates. Very different. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the post again.”

I didn’t say they were the same thing but both have the same problem of starting with unproven premises. Philosophers may use logic, science etc. as tools but must start with unproven premises
(which this post is loaded with) just as the religious believer begins with the unproven premise of God.

“It is amazing that in order to maintain the position that divinely imposed morals are necessary the apologists for this position must maintain that humans are incapable of working out even the most basic and obvious moral principles for themselves.”

Obvious to whom? You and others like you of course. It is amazing that in order to maintain the position that a universal morality may be derived without a lawgiver they must resort to ad hominems.

You keep saying philosophy is not perfect but it is the best we have. You would suffer no such imperfection in a religious argument for morality.

I swear I will not be particularly active in posting on this thread. I have pushed off enough responsibilities so far, that I need to actually focus on my actual work. Plus I start my clinical duties again on Monday (though thankfully it is work at a very underserved high school clinic so my hours will be short and known a priori).

I just want to say that I did learn a LOT from the last two threads. Mostly from Dr. Novella, but also from all the other commenters – including Zach. It is amazingly useful to delineate where one makes assumptions and to also learn about such a complex system. It pertains, of course, to medical ethics – something which is important in general to me as a soon-to-be physician, but also because my intended field of practice deals with death and dying regularly and I think many if not most physicians are ill equipped to deal with end-of-life and palliation issues.

I’ll also add that at some point I will need to re-read Harris’ Moral Landscape in context of my knew knowledge from these conversations. I feel that I have grown significantly in these last few days of heated and rapid fire discussion. I was absolutely on board with Harris’ assertions about the ability for science to not only inform but determine morality. I did not realize at the time his stance was one of strict consequentialism (heck, I didn’t even know that existed at the time I read the book). I don’t reject Harris’ claims outright, but I see now they are at least incomplete. I still think there remains an ability to significantly further inform moral systems using neuroscientific techniques, but I realize now how they cannot form the foundational basis and explain the totality of a moral system.

So I would just like to thank everyone who participated in the conversation – not only including, but especially Zach (and I mean that genuinely Zach!) – for giving me such an opportunity to learn. Though not an every day occurrence conversations on these topics do come up and now I can speak vastly more intelligently on the topic, and can make the conversation more efficient by honing in more easily on points of contention thanks to reading everything Zach laid down.

I’ll close by saying that D2u’s comment above was very insightful and accurate. I would say that the best evidence we have that there is no absolute and objective morality is the fact that we are even having this discussion – or moreso that so many people the world over are having the discussion. Asking a question like “why is harm bad” is actually exactly what moral philosophers do and the starting point for all moral systems. The intractability of moral absolutists like William Lane Craig and Zach hinges on the fact that any answer other than “[insert moral lawgiver of choice] said so” is simply not accepted. The true answer is complex, nuanced, detailed, and requires rigor of thought and hard work. By deferring the answers to these questions to an outside entity it both relieves the burden of responsibility of those decisions and the need for hard work. This actually is not inherently such a bad thing, since theologians who think on morality are doing the exact same thing as secular moral philosophers to determine the answers to these questions, even though the theologian doesn’t realize or admit it. The problems arise when an “answer” is arrived at, because it then becomes impossible to argue against “God said so” and thus becomes incredibly ripe for abuse (as we have seen).

I’ll continue following this thread to learn more, but if I post anything more than a short blurb only on occasaion after this one, I would ask one favor of my friendly co-commenters here (you know who you are) – remind me to do my other work! And rats to you all for being so incredibly interesting, informative, educational, and awesome.

NAA – We can think about which feelings matter, which are relevant, etc. I am taking as a given that the purpose of a moral system is to achieve some goal. Otherwise – what is morality in the first place? Morality only exists and makes any sense in some context. You are trying to remove morality from any context, but this is just assuming the conclusion you are trying to get to – that we need an outside authority to dicatate morals to us.

Regarding livnig alone – go ahead and live in the desert all by yourself. As long as your actions don’t affect others, you can really do whatever you want. (Of cuorse we have to consider the ethics of animals and the environment, but that’s a can of worms we don’t need to get into here). If you could hypothetically be isolated from all other people, than I would agree morals seem unnecessary.

I justified my premises. (justification is not the same as proof – another non sequitur). Please, feel free to justify your beilef in your god. I am listening.

Finally – I never argued that morality is 100% universal. Just like science – no human knowledge is 100%. We should strive to make is as universal as possible, because that serve the purpose of morality better, but that’s it.

A religious argument for morality serves nothing, because it is based solely on faith.

champenoise – but we have made tremendous progress doing just that. Most industrialized nations have laws that are fairly similar in broad brush strokes – the big moral questions. We are also developing international moral standards.

Psychological studies show that most people want to be good, think they are good, and hold similar basic morality. The problem is that most people also do not have a well-developed moral philosophy and ratinonalize easily. This can be improved with education.

champenoise: I think basic morality is part of the human condition but difficult to put in words.

One might also say that it’s built into our primate cousins, insofar as they exhibit prosocial behaviors and those observed in game theory, such as rewarding cooperation and punishing defection.

But it’s hard for me to divorce these phenomena from the familiar abstract concepts (e.g. rules and principles) and language (“good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”, “virtue”, “vice”), which form the building blocks of human moral philosophy, and still call that “morality.”

Steven: Again I thinkyou are falling into the trap of assuming that anything less than objective morality (which I agree, does not make any sense) is completely arbitrary. Having a subjective component to morality is not the same as arbitrary, which implies equivalency.

Hear, hear!

Yet, to concede that point is to basically concede the argument. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

“Beyond that, good luck convincing the rest of the world to adopt a new moral system, especially if it doesn’t have anything supernatural. It may be worthwhile to try to describe that basic part that we have in common, in say the next 1000 years or so.”

Are you unaware how much change there has been in recent times regarding this very topic? Its not about “convincing the rest of the world” about a “new moral system,” but it is about change and progress in coming up with anwers on these moral questions for ourselves. Its pretty obvious that this occurs, and it is noticeable in real time…or at least the changes are obvious over one’s lifetime at this point in history. Its also pretty clear that these changes are not arbitrary, or there would be no such thing as progress. Arbitrary changes over time would appear to be lateral changes, and its pretty clear that they are not.

I have to second what nybgrus said. I have a lot of work to do, but these conversations have been good for this blog and followers

Why cant morals/moral behavior be understood as fulfilling a selected for evolutionary niche..After we move from a more savage animal code to a social/communal one,woundn’t you expect a kind of behavioral change(moral conduct).Like the onset of language at the right time,there is a time when cooperation and stewardship become beneficial for humal evolution.

BTW, having taken up a casual interest in Buddhism in recent years, I’m amused – although hardly surprised – by the Judeo-Christian framing that Zach & NAA use to present their arguments.

In the Buddhist wisdom tradition – which is still upheld by hundreds of millions (if not over a billion, according to some estimates) of people today – the Buddha functions less as a “lawgiver” than as a guide to spiritual enlightenment or (better) awakening (which is bound up in the metaphysics of karma). Although the Buddha is supposed to have arrived at mystical insights into transcendent/ultimate reality – which I suppose is analogous to prophecy in the Abrahamic religions – Buddhist ethics are framed more as “as training rules that laypeople undertake voluntarily to facilitate practice” [source].

As an aside, the voluntary nature of that undertaking jibes well with the empiricist (although pre-scientific) nature of Buddhist epistemology. As one scholar/monk put it:

Buddhism is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing. The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as “Ehi-Passiko”, inviting you to come and see, but not to come and believe.

I intend none of this as a wholesale endorsement of Buddhism – which comes with plenty of baggage – but merely as an illustration that the “lawgiver” metaphor is not universally shared by all world religious ethical traditions. (For that matter, it seems inapt as a description of ancient Greek ethics, as well.)

All religions have their own axioms. Some Christians have the axiom that everything in the Bible is the true and infallible word of God. But when you adopt that premise and try to prove stuff, you run into inconsistencies.

Logicians then deduce that the inconsistencies derive from a bad premise. Some Christians deduce that the inconsistencies derive from logic being not the appropriate tool to evaluate religion, that “faith” is a better tool. “Faith” only works to evaluate religion because faith is completely subjective and circular. If you have faith something is true, then by faith it is true.

Hillel the Elder (pre Jesus of Nazareth) reduced Jewish Law to one premise:

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

I think you should re-read the Moral Landscape because I think you’ll find it *isn’t* simple consequentialism (that is, that each action is judged on the basis of its own consequences). I was disappointed to hear Massimo Pigliucci characterize it this way because, well, he should know better.

Harris explicitly rejects this position repeatedly. First of all, it’s clear we AT LEAST need to judge actions based on the consequences that could reasonably have been expected in advance, rather than just what consequences happen to happen. Actually winning the lottery doesn’t retroactively make the decision to purchase a ticket a rational one. He also acknowledges the importance of intentions, again, because of the consequential work they do in the world. It makes perfect sense that we should lock up sociopaths (in fact, he laments the fact we feel the need to let them out, despite near certainty they will re-offend).

Honestly I think consequentialism is badly straw-manned, even by many philosophers. It’s weird. They object with things like “would it be okay to harvest organs from 1 random person to save 5,” as we saw in the other thread, despite a moments consideration being sufficient to answer “no, nobody would want to live in a world where I might randomly be selected to have my organs harvested; it’s a far better principle to grant everyone rights to their own body and organs.” You adopt rules based on the sum total of the consequences of adopting those rules. In fact, deontological ethics are often propped up as being a refutation of consequentialism, but deontological ethics amount to Rule Consequentialism — or else fall into absurdity. Even Kant–the very symbol of deontological ethics, when describing how to know an action is wrong, basically said “can you imagine if everyone behaved that way?” Sorry, Kant: that’s consequentialism. Maybe Kantsequentialism.

I also think it’s unfair to characterize Harris as saying that science can determine right and wrong without the aid of philosophy–especially when Pigliucci defines philosophy’s role as being, essentially, reasoning police. Does he really think that Harris–or anyone–thinks valid reasoning isn’t important to the process? Why say *philosophy* is important when all you mean is that valid reasoning is important? Philosophy is far too loaded a term–it has too much baggage, including a whole lot of groundless, metaphysical speculation. I say this, by the way, as a philosophy major, not as someone with a bone to pick against it.

Anyway. End rant. Re-read Harris. He’s far more thoughtful on the subject that most of his critics give him credit for…which seems to be a trend with him.

I realize that mentioning the name Ayn Rand in any comment thread is just begging for a flame war, but if you’re going to write a post about objective vs. subjective morality, her ideas are well worth considering.

In short, Rand held that man’s nature as a volitional being necessitates a code of conduct (morality) to guide his actions, and that the objective standard of value is his life. Actions that further his long-range happiness (flourishing/eudaemonia) are objectively good, and actions which inhibit his ability to flourish are objectively bad.

Of course, Rand had quite a bit more to say about it than that, but I trust those who are interested will pursue it on their own. Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness is a good starting point, but if you find Rand’s writing style off-putting, I highly recommend reading Tara Smith’s Viable Values: http://www.amazon.com/Viable-Values-Study-Reward-Morality/dp/0847697614/

And yes, I know, no philosopher takes Ayn Rand seriously, you read Ayn Rand when you were 18 but then you grew up, etc. etc.

Philosofrenzy: Aside from the criticisms lodged against The Moral Landscape by other philosophers, which Massimo Pigliucci shares, I suspect that much of the cause of Massimo’s ire boils down to this one footnote [by Sam Harris]:

Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy … I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ … directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.

As a philosophy major, you don’t find that statement to be dismissive of your major, not to mention anti-intellectual?

I can’t speak for what he says in the book, but the criticism of him is not strictly what he says in the book, but based upon the accumulation of what he has said elsewhere. I haven’t studied his position that much, but the title of his TED talk is “Science can answer moral questions.” If he is misunderstood, he is at least partially responsible for it

For example, murder. There have been many times in history where murder was deemed acceptable when a husband discovered his wife in bed with a lover.

The fact of the exception creates inconsistency. Also, the fact that not every person would consider that an acceptable exception creates inconsistency.

Murder is normally defined not just as killing, but killing without necessity or good reason. The very concept of murder, like other crimes, is not definable without “exceptions”.

Is it immoral to pick up a dollar from a table and leave the building? Even by what seems to be the most basic moral standards, you can’t say without adding conditions. Whose dollar is it? Is it yours? Is it someone else’s dollar, with a sign next to it reading “free dollar”?

The fact that we have not yet found any completely agreed upon morality also points to a lack of universality.

I am not sure what you mean by the last few words… no aspect of morality is universal, or not all aspects are universal? The second interpretation is hard to disagree with, but the first would be a non-sequitur.

“This is true, but just because moral standards have changed doesn’t mean morality has changed. It means that humans are imperfect in understanding and in practice of morality.”

How can you make this distinction when you acknowledge that humans are imperfect in our understanding & practice of the Universal Morality? If we can never truly understand and practice God’s version of morality (because of our imperfect natures), how can we know that God doesn’t change the rules for morality every so often.

I would strongly suggest you learn more about the history of Christianity or any other major religion. You will find that morality, as it has been defined by the various Churches and sects has changed dramatically over the centuries and Christianity as it is practiced today is nothing like what was practiced in it’s infancy as a religion. With that in mind, it makes it very difficult to argue that religion and belief in God provides any kind of anchor on which to base your system of morality.

What is true?
How we know what is true?
How/should we enforce morality?

You repeatedly object to rational morality based on the fact that it’s possible to get away with not behaving morally. So what? How does that in any way change the fact that it would be BETTER if nobody did? That’s like saying that because it’s possible to cheat at poker by hiding an Ace up your sleeve, therefore the rules don’t actually forbid it. Yes, the rules of poker are arbitrary, but that’s irrelevant in this case. The point is that the ability or inability to cheat and break the rules has no bearing on whether they are the right rules. That’s a separate question.

But more importantly, your suggested objection has some nasty consequences for your own position. Can’t people cheat and ignore the rules on theistic, “ultimate, objective ethics” too? Is the fact they ultimately go to hell for it what makes the rules “true?” Are you incapable of envisioning a universe in which God forgives everyone their trespasses, and takes away their tendency to misbehave when they die, letting them all into heaven? Whether you think this is the universe we live in, is this universe logically incoherent? Does your system NEED people to ultimately suffer for their wrong doing for it to actually be wrong-doing? This is just a bizarre form of consequentialism: acts are immoral if YOU SUFFER for doing them.

a) you’re back in the as-of-yet-unanswered Euthyphro dilemma and b) you’re admitting that the ability or inability to get away with immorality is absolutely irrelevant to determining what is moral.

ccbowers: It is both. And it’s a non sequitur even if true, but it isn’t

To be fair, I probably respond in a similar way to Harris at times. For example, the idea that consequences matter in normative discussion is what I would usually call a “duh report.”

But the idea that trained professionals are paid for defending the notion that only consequences matter – even though we seldom know what those consequences will be, and thereby are forced by our own epistemic limits to follow various guidelines/rules of thumb/heuristics, instead – strikes me not so much as boring, as borderline scandalous.

Thankfully, other trained professionals (i.e. moral philosophers) have already addressed this problem, such that science is not the only self-correcting enterprise in town.

“We can take as empirical facts, however, that humans have feelings and our actions affect others – these are therefore well-founded premises for a moral system.”

This is fine so far, I would wonder if there was only 1 human would suicide be morally wrong?

“Because humans are feeling social animals, we need morality, and certain principles are necessary for a moral system for a social feeling species (such as reciprocity).”

How did you determine that reciprocity is a moral absolute?

“This is partly a logical statement, for without reciprocity you don’t have a moral system that helps us live together (again – the very reason for the system in the first place).”

This is a leap. You are assuming the existence of a moral system by assuming a moral principle.

Could we not have a moral system that told us that reciprocity was false and then engage all moral decisions from that premise? We could come up with one, so why that principle?

“are moral first principles, therefore, objective or subjective. This, I maintain, is a false dichotomy. They are complex, with some subjective aspects (the values) and some objective aspects (explorations of their universality and implications).”

It’s not a false dichotomy because the first principles are actually morality itself.

One of your first principles is, “Harm is bad.” Well what is this statement? It’s a moral principle. So you are essentially saying morality is derived from morality – a circular argument. Moral principles cannot be derived from moral principles, for that is the question itself, “how does one determine moral principles.”

Now, I agree, once you know these moral principles you can then test it objectively and empirically, to say that the first principles themselves are objective is the position you are actually arguing against – that moral principles are objective – since first principles ARE moral principles.

“In my personal experience, everyone that has made taken this position with me used their religious faith in God as their “objective” source of morality – a “lawgiver.”

No, Sam Harris would agree with me that morality is derived from an objective standard – see my chart at the bottom. Within the camps of naturalism and supernaturalism you will find those in agreement on the notion that morality is derived from an objective standard.

“There are also those who (probably unintentionally) argue that the laws of nature dictate a certain morality. This is the “it’s not natural” argument, which in my opinion is nothing but the naturalistic fallacy. This line of argument has mostly been rejected by philosophers as an is/ought confusion.”

Agreed.

“Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.”

If there is an objective moral standard within naturalism or supernaturalism, just because we don’t know it wouldn’t effect whether it was there, and rooted in that. We would just be blind to it. And just because I can’t see/know something, doesn’t negate its existence. I.E. modern scientific discoveries that were previously not known.

“actually, I think they work backward from their desire to prove a lawgiver, but that is a separate point”

Can the same charge also then be made that you work backward from your desire to prove no lawgiver?

“How, then, does the lawgiver derive their morality? “

This assumes they did and would have to. Maybe they didn’t and they like seeing us fail? Or maybe they did.

“This leads to Euthyprho’s dilemma – are the morals of God right because God says so or does God say so because they are objectively right? Of course, it can be both, but that does not really solve anything.”

“We are still left with the problem of what possible basis there can be for objective morality. If it’s not “God says so” then what is it?”

This assumes we can even know it.
I agree we can, but it’s still something to consider.

“There is also an unsolvable practical issue – no one has a direct line to God. There are those who claim to, but no one can demonstrate that they actually have objective access to the true moral rules of the lawgiver. In fact, different societies have all had their prophets claiming such access, and dispensing moral codes that are suspiciously primitive and derivative of their time and culture, and also incompatible with the moral codes dispensed by other prophets.”

This assumes that you have all knowledge on all claims of a direct line to God. You don’t, and you haven’t disproved them. I’m not saying you are wrong, but you haven’t proven anything, only asserted it to be true.

“The only possible basis for preferring one set of “revealed” rules over another is faith. There is no way to resolve differences of such faith-based moral codes – it’s just faith vs faith. Any attempt to argue that one set of faith-based rules is superior to another again resorts to moral philosophy. Without some appeal to moral philosophy, what can people say except that their God and traditions are the True ones, and everyone else’s is false.”

Disagreed. I believe all world views/religions are not created equally.

Your premise is that it’s too hard weight these religions truth claims since they are 100% dependent on faith, so they are untrustworthy. I assert, at least my view, is not reliant on blind faith, but evidences that require not holding certain un-provable presuppositions.

I assert that weighing truth claims is extremely difficult, but we have no other choice.

“None of this, the objective moralist will argue, proves that there is no god or that there is no objective morality, but this is irrelevant (a non sequitur). The point is, even if there were, humans have no way to know about it in any verifiable way that can be universalized. This necessarily leads us to tribal warring over whose beliefs are correct?”

I don’t believe this, but is it not as simple as might makes right? Why is that not a possible explanation?
I assert that it is because something within you warns you that you know better. The same type of thing that tells a bird that flying is better than walking. A sort of instinct. Now I’m not saying these instincts can tell you right and wrong, but only that there is right and wrong.

_

But regardless, all of this doesn’t address the holes in your own view of subjective morality.

_

Ccbowers said,

“The only thing I would like to emphasize (since Zach seems to have a problem with this concept) is that these moral first principle are concepts that are discussed and debated first. Its not like they are assumed and that is the end of the discussion.”

I can provide you numerous quotes from the previous post’s comments of saying that these principles are assumed – they are self-evident – axioms if you will. If you would like to change your opinion on this and then demonstrate how you know these to be true, then by all means – but then you are arguing for an objective morality not a subjective one – unless you equate morality with mere values and then embrace moral relativism.

Sarah said,

“I would argue that when you are measuring a subjective thing, the observer determines it’s consistency. And two different observers may have different views of the event.
For example, murder. There have been many times in history where murder was deemed acceptable when a husband discovered his wife in bed with a lover.
The fact of the exception creates inconsistency. Also, the fact that not every person would consider that an acceptable exception creates inconsistency.
The fact that we have not yet found any completely agreed upon morality also points to a lack of universality.”

This appears to the view of moral relativism – which Steven won’t accept.

JJ Borgman said,

“I would like to hear commentary on the subject of absolutes. I think there is little room for suggesting anything we’re discussing here can be absolute. “

There are no absolutes!

Do you absolutely mean that?

=)

Kawarthajon said,

“To take your idea one step farther, moral standards have changed dramatically over time and continue to change, which is a strong argument against some sort of Objective, Universal Moral Code from God or some other source. If Morality were truly objective and come from God, or some other universal source, they would be stable over time”

Why? Only if we didn’t have the choice to do or not do what we were told to do.

Seven said,

“The premise is that people have feelings. What those feelings are is a separate question. The fact that we have feelings means that some outcomes will be preferable to us. The purpose of a moral system is to prmote those outcomes.”

This is non sequitur. You are assuming without evidence that certain feelings are to be promoted over other feelings. Why?

Why not base your entire moral system around promoting the feeling of fear since all humans feel fear? Or hatred? How are you deciding which one is the best? How are you determining which outcomes are preferable?

Steven said,

“Further, your point about stealing ignores the second premise – that we need to live together. You may like stealing, but other people do not like being stolen from. So how do we device a moral system that accounts for both of these conflicting desires?”

Non sequitur. This assumes that ALL of humanity must live together without harming one another. Why? A lion might look after his tribe but not other tribes, and even harm those other tribes. There are still lions today, they didn’t die out. So why not assume that I should only try to live together with those near me who I am reliant upon to survive?

Steven said,

“I can justify the notion that harm is bad.”

How? Please tell me how you arrived that this conclusion.

Evidence only please, not naked assertions on what you happen to value.

The human condition is the collective feelings, nature, and essence of what is it to be a person living in the world. Again – the context of morality.

Why do I need to apply the specific feeling that you arbitrary chose out of all of the other feelings to every person living in the world? Why not just my tribe, or those I depend on to exist?

“Psychologists do surveys and experiments all the time evaluating what percentage of people hold certain beliefs or engage in certain bahaviors with what invluences, including cultural influences. That is empirical data. The neurological basis does not determine moral values, but it is not irrelevant. It is useful to know, for example, what elements of brain function are being engaged in certain behaviors and situations. This does give us insight into why people make certain decisions.”

Ok, so what?

“This is a main point of the post – Philosophers have a system by which they can evaluate moral thinking. It’s not perfect, it’s complex, philosophers of course can disagree, but there are rules, the application of logic, informed by science, etc. “

I would contend this is no different (actually worse), than your complaint against religions.

Religions also have a system by which they can evaluate moral thinking. It’s also complex. Religious people can disagree, but they are rules, the applications of logic informed by science, etc. etc.

This is simply NOT equivalent to a faith-based system in which morals are whatever one subculture says their god dictates. Very different. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the post again. “

“Further, there are almost 200 religions making up that 90% and they have no way to resolve their differences, and so using a secular philosophy-based system makes sense. People can be religious and respect religious freedom.” “

How many views of philosophy are there? By your notion we can’t use any philosophy either.

“In any case, this is a non sequitur- and appeal to popularity. I laid out the reasons why a philosophical system works and a faith-based system does not.” “

Your view is very reliant on popularity too.

“ I do not need a magic authority to tell me that if I expect to have my right respected I should respect the rights of others. I can work that out for myself, thanks.”“

Ok how, because I have just demonstrated how your view is invalid.

“It is amazing that in order to maintain the position that divinely imposed morals are necessary the apologists for this position must maintain that humans are incapable of working out even the most basic and obvious moral principles for themselves.”

Check out the news, hasn’t happened yet. Genocide happens all the time.

“JJ – regarding absolutes – there are no absolutes when it comes to humans, because we are flawed and have a limited perspective. There are no absolutes in science either, for that reason (there is always a frame of reference).” .”

Are you absolutely sure?

“We can think about which feelings matter, which are relevant, etc. I am taking as a given that the purpose of a moral system is to achieve some goal.”

Ok, so how do we determine the goal? Faith or objective evidence?

“A religious argument for morality serves nothing, because it is based solely on faith.” .”

Seems like you belief that harm is bad is rooted solely in faith too.
So why is your faith any better than someone elses?

“The problem is that most people also do not have a well-developed moral philosophy and ratinonalize easily. This can be improved with education.”

Not to break Godwin’s law without reason, but the Nazi’s were pretty stinken educated.

“nybgrus”

“I just want to say that I did learn a LOT from the last two threads. Mostly from Dr. Novella, but also from all the other commenters – including Zach. It is amazingly useful to delineate where one makes assumptions and to also learn about such a complex system.”

“So I would just like to thank everyone who participated in the conversation – not only including, but especially Zach (and I mean that genuinely Zach!) – for giving me such an opportunity to learn. Though not an every day occurrence conversations on these topics do come up and now I can speak vastly more intelligently on the topic, and can make the conversation more efficient by honing in more easily on points of contention thanks to reading everything Zach laid down.” .”

Thanks Nybgrus,

I may be crazy! But I’m educated crazy!

=)

Hope all goes well with your clinical duties.

_

Also, here is my morality chart I put together to help demonstrate my concerns visually.

I am absolutely neophyte at this stuff. I admit my inability to be precise and accurate in my critiques of Harris and hence my admission that I should and will re-read his book. I do generally like most everything that Harris puts out – especially in regard to free will. The beauty of being a rational person and not needing an unchanging and absolute authority to tell me how to act and think is that I can pick the best parts of what each thinker and scientist has to say and go from there (with priority in a Socratic method as to what is most important and what is most interesting taking priority over all the other innumerable things I could be learning).

I am also starting to truly appreciate the field of philosophy. I’ll admit it wasn’t terribly long ago (just a few years) that I thought the lot of it was nothing more than hifalutin mental masturbation. But I have a friend who is quite intelligent and conscientious and has completed his undergrad philosophy degree, almost done with his law degree, and will be starting his PhD in philosophy this year. He made me question my assumptions and the past few days’ conversations have given me just enough knowledge to know how much more there is to know and how valuable it is, despite my lack of ability to fully understand and apply it all.

Such is the amazing power of learning even just a little. I’ll never be a consummate philosopher, but at least now I have a newfound respect for the field and can continue to improve my own understanding of it. Oh, and have even more erudite, exciting, and educational conversations with my friend

I would say indocrinated crazy since you seem to have an absolute need to twist everything back to your pre-determined conclusions in order to render them false in your eyes.

But yes, you are more educated than your average bear, but you still make fundamental errors in logic and attribution in just about every single post you make. That is not an ad hom or an insult, merely an observation. One I won’t get into since others can and will. Plus, I have a small speech on medical ethics to give in a few hours….

@Mufi I do agree, but to be honest, I laughed at that footnote. It was rude, but funny–and it did hint at something that is, sadly, true.

Philosophers have shot themselves in the foot by developing needlessly esoteric jargon, (and often spinning off into groundless theoretical speculation). It’s why Daniel Dennett, for instance, is so refreshing. His insistence on clear language, grounded in evidence and experience makes it clear that he’s talking ABOUT something, and what it is he’s saying about it. Too often, even when you carefully make your way through a dense philosophical work, once you actually figure out what the person is saying, and break it down to its elements, it’s a trivial observation couched in fancy language.

It’s not an accident philosophers are parodied as being windbags. When people hear biologists or chemists talking, but do not understand them, we assume they are saying meaningful things because, after all, they have results we can point to as proof they are doing something. When philosophers argue, and others do not understand them, they have nothing to point to as evidence they’ve done anything productive, or even said anything meaningful.

But worse, even when you do the work to delve into the dense, jargon-filled texts, you find no more clarity of thinking on the subjects than in those that refrain from using it and are happy to state their thinking more clearly. My impatience with philosophy arises when I see a trend of trying to keep philosophy to the philosophers, rather than admitting that philosophers are–or should be–better at thinking about things that everyone should be thinking about. In my opinion the jargon tends to mask bad thinking, and is counter-productive.

Philosophy is done best when it’s stated simply, and in the clearest possible language. If philosophers want to weigh in in public debates, but can’t make their opinions understood without saying “trust us, we know what we’re talking about. You need to read Kant,” then there’s no evidence THEY know what they are talking about at all.

Philosofrenzy: Point taken, but then (as a lay person with limited amounts of free time) I limit my consumption of academic philosophers to those whom I can readily understand – like Dennett and Pigliucci. If I can do that, then what’s Harris’ excuse?

Zach – at least you are dipping your toes into a defense of your position.

You are still missing a point that has been repeated over and over – moral systems do not exist in a vacuum. They are for something, they require values – that we value some things more than others. If we had no values, desires, etc, morality would be irrelevant.

It is not faith – it is axiomatic that moral systems are about values, and so they require the existence of values. That values exist therefore is a necessary premise, or first principle. You keep asking, in various ways, to prove that, but it misses the point. You then ask “but what values” to which I answer – well, we can start with those that achieve the ends of the moral system, like reciprocity, and then proceed from there. We can ask question, like do sentient beings have any rights? If not, then again a moral system makes no sense, so it again seems a necessary premise that people have rights. What right? How can we figure out what the most basic right might be. How about the right not to have things done to them that they don’t want. This is not blind faith, as you dismissively characterize. It is inherent to the very concept of a moral system.

Zach wrote: ‘Religions also have a system by which they can evaluate moral thinking. It’s also complex. Religious people can disagree, but they are rules, the applications of logic informed by science, etc. etc.”

Really – so how do religious-based moral systems evaluate moral thinking? What are the rules, and how do they apply logic and evidence?

I wanted to post this yesterday in the other thread, but too darned busy this week to spend time on fun stuff like this. I was a vocal proponent of what Zach would call “moral relativism” – that morals are not 100% cosmically objective. But that doesn’t mean that Steve’s “first principles” don’t have solid, real, tangible origins. Here is where I believe a few of them originate.

Human rationality
Source: evolution

Human sense of fairness and reciprocity
Source: pre-human social evolution, validated by game theory (google “tit for tat”)

That’s a few – I’m sure this is a woefully inadequate list, but it’s enough to make a point. Why is one moral system better than another? Because it does a better job of appealing to or balancing these (and other) sources of human value judgments. If all humans have these core values, why have we not settled on one clear set of moral principles? Because in the end all cultures and people are different and therefore prioritize these differently. Why have moral principles changed over time (and why will they continue to change)? Because cultures have evolved differently, environments have changed, knowledge and experience have progressed and new factors have entered our collective moral calculators.

Why is this not simply “might makes right”? Because that simplistic view doesn’t satisfy enough of these principles or values for enough of the population to be sustainable.

Is killing a baby immoral? Yes, because it offends many of these values. Can we think of circumstances where killing a baby IS morally right? Hop on your time machine and go ask the inhabitants of Tikopia Island 200 years ago.

Finally, this is not exactly on this point, but it is one of my favorite scenes in a musical. Google to find the rest:

From “My Fair Lady”:

PICKERING. Have you no morals, man?

DOOLITTLE [unabashed] Can’t afford them, Governor. Neither could you if you was as poor as me.

@mufi Harris was responding to the criticism that he doesn’t engage with the ACADEMIC philosophy. Reading the popular, for-public-consumption works by academic philosophers is not the same thing as reading the actual, academic philosophy. Again, I think it’s an empty and lazy criticism to say “you aren’t up to speed on modern philosophy of ethics,” since, assuming the person making the criticism *is* up to speed, the fact they aren’t able to weigh in with something more substantive suggests that getting up to speed isn’t especially beneficial. Frankly, I think these criticisms tend to come from people who are impressed by academic philosophy, but aren’t especially good at it. People who are good at it–who get it–weigh in with carefully worded, specific criticisms.

I’m reminded of the people who are impressed by Derrida, but who can’t tell the difference between genuine passages, and those that have been altered randomly (adding ‘not’ or taking it away, for instance)…

“They are for something, they require values – that we value some things more than others. If we had no values, desires, etc, morality would be irrelevant.”

Of course they are for something, are for telling us what behavior is the right behavior when we have choices to be made.

You still did not address the vast majority of my critique I provided.

“It is not faith – it is axiomatic that moral systems are about values, and so they require the existence of values. That values exist therefore is a necessary premise, or first principle.”

It is not axiomatic that moral systems are about values, prove it. And even if we grant that you are back to square one – what values are the right ones when people value different things – I like red, you like blue.

“You then ask “but what values” to which I answer – well, we can start with those that achieve the ends of the moral system, like reciprocity, and then proceed from there.”

Why should reciprocity be the ends of the moral system? Why not hostility? Human’s already do both, so why one over the other? Maybe it’s morally right to put yourself ahead of all others and slight all those who have helped you…

“We can ask question, like do sentient beings have any rights? If not, then again a moral system makes no sense, so it again seems a necessary premise that people have rights. What right? How can we figure out what the most basic right might be. How about the right not to have things done to them that they don’t want.”

Sure, but maybe they have the right to kill each other and be killed by other humans when it suites them. You are making assumptions grounded in nothing but faith.

“Really – so how do religious-based moral systems evaluate moral thinking? What are the rules, and how do they apply logic and evidence?”

For starts, on the same basis we judge historical and logical reliance.

Steven, why such the strong to desire to divert away from your view to mine?

Philosofrenzy: Fair enough, although I still think that Pigliucci (and Blackburn, whom he quotes extensively in that post that I linked to above) raise some strong counter-arguments to the basic premise of The Moral Landscape, but I’ll leave that to you to assess for yourself.

Zach, Dr Novella takes as a premise for his generally accepted universally applicable morality that “harm is bad”. You say you do not accept that and instead accept the converse, that “harm is not bad” a a generally accepted universal premise. I can disprove your assertion with a counter-example. All I need is one instance of a person not accepting the idea that “harm is not bad” for it to be rejected as a quasi-universal premise.

The notion of reciprocity is required by morality because humans are not static. Humans start out as strands of DNA in a bag of cytoplasm, grow into an infant, grow into an adult, grow old and eventually die. A universal morality has to inform behaviors of and to that human being over its entire lifespan.

That morality can’t be only concerned with a single human actor because a single human actor does not exist in isolation. There is a time before the human actor became a conscious actor, a time when the human is a conscious actor and a time after the human is no longer a conscious actor. Presumably any generally applicable morality would also apply to those times when a human is not a conscious actor.

“Why should reciprocity be the ends of the moral system? Why not hostility?”

Because hostility would not achieve the thing morality is for. The fact you think this is a valid question suggests a lack of sincere effort to understand the opposing view. It’s an objective fact that one policy or the other will have better consequences for everyone involved. “Better?” I can hear you asking. Yes. Better. One will promote safety and happiness for everyone, the other will promote misery and suffering. “But why should we…” Etc. It’s meaningless to ask “why should we prefer safety and happiness to misery and suffering.” We do. We prefer it. And so we seek a system to achieve that end. That’s all the justification morality needs. Rules objectively do or do not achieve that end.

piggybacking on Philosofrenzy to Zach: It’s meaningless to ask “why should we prefer safety and happiness to misery and suffering.” We do. We prefer it.

Because God made us in His image, and He prefers our safety and happiness to our misery and suffering.

Is that explanation acceptable to you, Zach?

If so, then see if you can translate it into naturalistic terms – say, using biological evolutionary processes – and then perhaps you’ll grasp where many of us are coming from.

Note: In either explanation, the “we” in question does not mean have to mean every person on the planet. Some individuals may, in fact, be deviant and actually prefer misery and suffering to safety and happiness.

The reason god is not the executor of morality is because he has no residency in the cognition of the human animal.If god were real,his apparentness would be unequivocally felt in everyone.Much like the blood system,we may have different types,yet we all understand it’s part of our resident biological system.

@mufi I read that review and I frankly found them superficial. I find it hard to believe Blackburn read The Moral Landscape, as he claims, three times, based on the criticisms he offers.

Generally, Blackburn’s main, coherent criticism is “If we presuppose the well-being of conscious creatures as a fundamental value, much else may fall into place, but that initial presupposition does not come from science. It is not an empirical finding. ”

But here he is, by his own admission, objecting to a premise that he agrees with, to suggest that, technically, Harris has failed to make his case. I think Harris is right: Morality being about the well-being of conscious creatures is true, almost by definition. It’s axiomatic. He in fact demonstrates this with though experiments early on (does it even make sense to envision the morality of a universe without conscious creatures?”)

He makes his criticism clear: “Harris is highly critical of the claim, associated with Hume, that we cannot derive an “ought” solely from an “is” – without starting with people’s actual values and desires. He is, however, no more successful in deriving “ought” from “is” than anyone else has ever been. The whole intellectual system of The Moral Landscape depends on an “ought” being built into its foundations.”

But that’s the whole point: that the “ought” is built into the system–just as the “ought” of logic is built into the system. Just as it isn’t meaningful to ask “Why should we prefer true conclusions over false ones?” as a criticism of logic, neither is it meaningful to ask “why should we prefer the well-being of conscious creatures?” as a criticism of ethics. It’s a matter of fact that we do prefer it, and that ethics are the social technology that aims at achieving it. At one point, Blackburn objects that defining morality in terms of Well-being renders the question “why should I behave morally?” all but meaningless. But in my opinion, that’s the strength of Harris’ position: it elucidates WHY that question is so nonsensical.

Blackburn issues the same canard NotAnAtheist has been–considering the problem of ENFORCING morality somehow damaging to Harris’ case–as though it isn’t a problem for all ethics independently of how you understand them. In fact, on Harris’ understanding, it’s quite clear why we should enforce morality. Societies that enforce ethics promote well-being, while societies that have no form of enforcement benefit little from morality. It’s the difference between understanding medicine and having hospitals.

Why is Harris’ ethic RATIONALLY BINDING he asks? It isn’t. NO system of morality is. Ethics aren’t rationally binding, they are emotionally binding, so long as you share the human value of the well-being of conscious creatures. If you don’t, you’re a sociopath; that’s no more an objection to morality than a suicidal person is a refutation of medicine.

Anyway, I suppose that’s more than enough to explain why I don’t find these sophisticated refutations of Harris to be that impressive. They seem to miss the point in fundamental and surprisingly obvious ways.

I’d still like to see Zach prove to me that homosexuality is bad. This is a very common religious “moral” – that homosexuality is a sin, immoral, or just plainly – “bad.”

If you believe homesexuality to be immoral (and I am not saying you do, but I think I have a pretty good prior probability for assuming you do) then just take us through the exercise you use to explain why.

We have tried explaining our processes. It is only fair you at least give a stab at just one example of yours. This is a genuine request – not at all a gotcha. I won’t even weigh in on the response to your explanation – I’ll leave that to the rest here.

The point would be to put out your thinking on a single moral topic in explicit terms so we can see where we may differe and disagree.

Unless you don’t think it would stand up to scrutiny. But I can assure you those here will respond in civility and with intellectual honesty.

One of the ways that subjectivity is dealt with is by switching roles.

One of the fairest ways to divide something desirable, a piece of cake for example, between two people is to have one person divide the item into two pieces and then the other person picks first, or one person divides and who gets which piece is chosen at random.

The first person’s subjectivity doesn’t enter into who gets how much, only in how the cake is divided. The first person should have the goal of dividing it into pieces whereby the first person doesn’t care which piece he/she gets.

This is the essence of reciprocity in moral actions. If everyone treats everyone else a certain way, people won’t care which person they are because they all get treated “the same”, i.e. fairly.

This is the essence of the golden rule, and of Hillel the Elders premise of “that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”. I would modify it slightly, because some people do have different ideas of what they want done or not done to them. In the case of the hypothetical person who likes misery, the Golden rule and Hillel’s premise don’t work. But if you modify it to “that which is hateful to your fellow from their perspective, do not do to them”, then it works. If everyone practiced that, then no one would experience any actions that they found hateful.

Philosofrenzy: I confess that the negative reviews of The Moral Landscape (like the ones that I mentioned) discouraged me from reading it myself (or, more accurately, inspired to make a low priority of it). Based on your defense of it, I’m reconsidering that decision.

However, I’ll just add that, based on your defense, the book’s subtitle, “How Science Can Determine Human Values”, sounds very misleading.

He does describe how it’s possible to show, using the overarching value of human well-being that some values are counter-productive, while others are not. Valuing knowledge, for example, has good effects, while valuing virginity, maybe not so much. Still, I think the subtitle sets people up to misread his position from the get-go. As someone else pointed out, every writer has to take some responsibility for being misunderstood–though there’s no effective defense against the uncharitable reader, it’s the writer’s job to communicate as unambiguously as possible.

That reminds me of the concepts of rational choice theory and Nash equilibrium. In the former we note signficant critiques in that people make irrational decisions even when the rational course of action is known and clear. In the latter, we find systems in equilibrium when all players of the system make the best possible choices knowing what the choices of others in the system would be. In the real world, not only do we not have this knowledge, but it is too complex for individual players to keep track even if we did. Hence the messy and necessarily dynamic nature of morality and ethics.

@mufi: The book is actually a quick read. I actually read it nearly in its entirety on a train ride from San Diego to Los Angeles.

In light of this conversation, I would have to agree that the subtitle is indeed misleading. We can use science to inform values and help determine an optimal system of morality, but it cannot determine the values and axioms from which they stem.

Well, time to go chat with the new Year 3′s about ethics and morality! Then celebratory beers before they start their first round of clinical duties next week.

Philosofrenzy: For that matter, you said to Zach above that “It’s an objective fact that one policy or the other will have better consequences for everyone involved.” While that’s fine in theory, I find myself in enough seemingly irresolvable policy debates with friends (usually of a more conservative bent than I) as to raise doubts about this premise. At the very least, I think we need to lay an assumption or two on the table in order to make it work, such as that we all conceive of well-being in the same way and that we all agree on the terms of its availability.

On this note, I recommend cognitive scientist George Lakoff’s work on politics (e.g. Moral Politics or The Political Mind). I think he’d agree hat there is a fact of the matter to be discovered re: well-being (i.e. it’s not for nothing that he defends a liberal/progressive policy agenda), but with certain caveats about the metaphorical ways in which we model concepts like well-being and morality. (For more on that, I also Philosophy in the Flesh, co-authored with philosopher Mark Johnson.)

PS: Just to quickly sum up Lakoff’s thesis, political conservatives and progressives disagree because they work with different (neurally bound) mental models of morality, which are analogous to different models of parenting, which he calls Strict Father (conservative) and Nurturing Parent (progressives). (Many of us are “bi-conceptual”, however, and harbor concepts from both models.) The upshot is that we evaluate both moral means and ends differently.

PPS: The Judeo-Christian Lawgiver metaphor that’s recurred in these threads about ethics is not unlike the Strict Father metaphor that Lakoff describes re: political conservatives, except of course that one needn’t be a devout Christian or Jew in order to work with the latter.

Get something straight so perhaps you could lose some of that hubris and display a little humility for a change. You didn’t instruct us. You weren’t the one who taught anyone anything. And you are NOT educated, at least on certain subjects (science and logic immediately jump out).

Rather, you’ve been instructional. That’s all. Your inane arguments and unjustified premises have only served to get people to examine them more closely and in order to more accurately determine why they are incorrect, and that ultimately forces them to examine their own knowledge on the subject.

People have thanked you for being instructional, but rather you took it as you educating them on a subject from your knowledge. No! I, for one, cringed when I saw the heartfelt thanks because I knew that you would mistaken it and run with it. You completely misunderstood his intellectual honesty and humility. Another prime example of Dunning-Kruger.

Zach reflects what I so often see in modern religious apologetics: a pseudo-intellectualism rife with unfalsifiable claims and baseless premises inherent in intellectual dishonesty. Nearly always it is accompanied by begging the question, arguments from ignorance, and strawmen of science, philosophy, and logic. They make their case by attacking opposing positions rather than justifying their own (and often getting the opposing position wrong). It’s frustrating to see science, philosophy, and logic mangled and corrupted so badly, and painful to observe the intellectual dishonesty. What I have seen here is every bit as pedantic and sophomoric as anything Craig and Strobel has put out.

So, while I personally appreciate how instructional it can be to deconstruct theistic apologetics, I don’t credit the knowledge of the proponents, but rather the act of deconstructing them as what’s educational.

Philosofrenzy: Sounds a lot like the work of Jonathan Haidt, who has shown a lot of very interesting differences between the way conservatives and liberals approach morality, in practice.

Yes, particularly with regard to the way the groups prioritize their shared values differently, and the way these forces work largely beneath the surface of conscious awareness (bubbling to the surface, as it were).

But I think it’s fair to say that Lakoff is more partisan than Haidt in that Lakoff openly expresses his distaste for the conservative Strict Father approach to both family and politics, whereas Haidt is more apt to refrain from judging the conservatives’ prioritization of loyalty, respect for authority, and purity, and even has even portrayed it (despite a personally liberal background) as more balanced (for whatever that’s worth) than the the liberals’ almost exclusive emphasis on care and fairness.

I confess that I’m at least as partisan as Lakoff on this matter – especially after we factor in other philosophical domains, besides ethics (such as epistemology, to which journalist Chris Mooney’s “Republicans and science” work is relevant).

“I would like to hear commentary on the subject of absolutes. I think there is little room for suggesting anything we’re discussing here can be absolute. “

You wrote,

“There are no absolutes!
Do you absolutely mean that?” (followed by a smiley)

Apart from using one of the words in my post, your comment is not relevant to mine. Now, you may have been exercising a little levity there, but it is remarkably similar, in structure, to many of your responses to posts: not relevant and not in context.

Like this, for example:

Someone wrote:

“Because humans are feeling social animals, we need morality, and certain principles are necessary for a moral system for a social feeling species (such as reciprocity).”

You wrote:

“How did you determine that reciprocity is a moral absolute?”

You have used a couple of words common to the posters original post, but otherwise your comment does not follow. I have observed you doing that very same thing in abundance. Can you explain why you are convoluting the discussion in this manner? Both examples above are exactly as you pulled them out of a longer post and replied to them.

I read Zach’s linked “Third option” proving that Euthyphro’s dilemma is false. It’s the typical, terrible Christian apologetic, that “morality comes from God’s nature, which is good,” which is utterly meaningless. It isn’t a third option: it’s BOTH of the first two, contradictory, options of the dilemma at the same time. It’s “God decides what is good properly because he is Good.” But what does “God is good” even mean without appeal to an outside standard? If the standard IS God, “God is good” means “God is God.”

If God likes child sacrifice–that IS good because it’s God’s nature to like it. Oh, but God wouldn’t like child sacrifice, you say–it’s not in his nature, because he’s Good. Oh? How do you know?

The writer appeals to God’s being the creator to explain that He, therefore “knows what things are made for,” and so is in a position to say how they should be used. Rape, it explains is wrong *because that’s not what sex is for.* Yikes.

Besides being an appalling assessment of rape, this just pushes back the dilemma. How does the author *know* that God didn’t create human beings to create a population large enough to sustain human sacrifice? Or to provide rape porn? Any answer must appeal to an external standard to explain why God wouldn’t do such a thing.

Finally, why should humans care what they were created for? If we created a race of sentient robots to clean our houses, would it be irrelevant if they didn’t wish to? Besides being insensitive and totalitarian, this makes God into an incompetent creator–creating things for a purpose they don’t want to do.

Like so much theology and Christian apologetics, this “answer” to Euthyphro involves insisting something is true, even if that thing is literally nonsensical or meaningless. God is three persons in one being, right? Whatever that means. God is imminent AND transcendent, right? Whatever that means. Goodness flows from God’s unchanging nature, right? Whatever that means.

Can you explain why you are convoluting the discussion in this manner?

It seems to me that Zach’s entire argument centers around proving that absolute objective morality exists by trying to prove that it doesn’t not exist. In other words, he’s trying to prove a negative. So, instead of providing evidence and justification that objective morality exists and it necessarily requires a law bringer, he instead attacks the position of the denial of these claims. A VERY common theme among apologists and creationists. Nothing I’ve seen yet has indicated he’s wavered in this tactic one bit. He simply doesn’t understand, or chooses not to acknowledge, his burden of proof.

I have been under the impression that one cannot prove a negative and then I heard/read that it is actually possible to do so. Sorry, can’t recall the source or the argument.

Zachs attempt to prove “if not A, then A” is interesting except for the fact that, in cases like this, that still requires the proof (to use a math term), or a model for construction, of A.

Proofs are tricky things to argue about. There are tricks that can be used to deceive an opponent in an argument. One used in mathematics is division by zero. It can be hidden (so to speak) in an equation to appear to produce a certain result, but is a trick that yields a wrong result.

I googled “absolutes” earlier today because I was curious about what actual absolutes are considered possible and got pages of apologetics sites for a result. Big friggin surprise.

Having read the comments from both articles, I think one of the reasons people attack subjective morality is because on one hand people claim objective morality doesn’t exist, but then those same people try to justify why we should be compelled to act morally according to some vauge criteria.

You cannot have it both ways. If objective morality does not exist, it seems the most logical conclusion is what Richard Dawkins states when he says “There is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…We are machines propagating DNA…It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Even discussing morality becomes a circular exercise with no real clarification. Sam Harris says that it should be to maximize well-being. Who defines well-being? You? Me? Republicans? Democrats?

IMO it seems perfectly reasonable for people like Zach to bring up questions when a strong claim is made.

A cowardly semantic dodge. I said my list was woefully inadequate. What part of “woefully inadequate” did you not understand? I give you a set of human values that don’t source from some cosmic objective standard, and your way of addressing them is to tell me that I left a bunch out?

If you come across a source discussing the possibility of “proving a negative”, would you mind posting that? I’m curious to see what is said about that because it’s something I always figured was, at best, highly improbable. The way I see it in this context, it’s a dishonest and underhanded way of shifting the burden of proof and a red herring.

We use the word “proof” here pretty loosely I think, because we’re using it as shorthand for “justification with evidence and logic”. It has the baggage of connoting certitude, which may suit apologists and creationists, but not anyone with the intellectual honesty to realize that nothing is for 100% certain, that it’s more realistic to deal with probabilities. That, of course, goes to the heart of the disagreement here, absolute v. subjective.

I’m not at all surprised that you found so many apologist websites when googling “absolutes” (isn’t it funny how “google” has become a verb?). It is, afterall, one of the cornerstones of religious apologetics.

In the loose sense in which people normally mean “prove”–”demonstrate as very probable,” Bayesian reasoning allows us to demonstrate a negative when that negative predicts different outcomes. This is related to the “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” thing, which isn’t quite right. If evidence is all but certain to be present given a hypothesis, its absence is very strong evidence the hypothesis is false.

For instance, when you get home today, the presence of your house demonstrates to reasonable certainty that “no nuclear devices were detonated in my house today.” It doesn’t *prove* it–it’s possible an unprecedented clean-up and reconstruction took place while you were gone as well–but in the absence of evidence for such a clean up, the presence of the house is good evidence no nuclear warhead went off.

In some cases, though, absence or presence predict no differences in outcome–at which point we are stuck. If you get home and find a window open, it would be impossible to PROVE that no bird flew in, then back out of the room while you were gone.

Nybgrus,
<blockquote“I’d still like to see Zach prove to me that homosexuality is bad. This is a very common religious “moral” – that homosexuality is a sin, immoral, or just plainly – “bad.”
From the perspective of the Bible and explained with that as the foundation of moral truth or from a secular premise of some other?

I am leery of discussing an issue like this with you, because I sense it is more than just an intellectual conversation for you, it is a personal one that is emotional.

If you mean my exact view of morality with a comment on homosexuality, well, I’ll be writing an article on in soon, so you’ll have to bear with me (morality this, not homosexuality – though I will probably write on that soon, just gotta think of a blog name).

“I confess that the negative reviews of The Moral Landscape (like the ones that I mentioned) discouraged me from reading it myself (or, more accurately, inspired to make a low priority of it).”

I didn’t read it because I think I already have pin pointed where Harris goes wrong from watching his Ted talk on morality – maybe his book doesn’t commit the same logical fallacies, but his Ted talk was pretty un-impressive. What bothered me the most is, from what I remember, Harris has a degree in philosophy…. How he doesn’t recognize such elementary mistakes in logic amazes me.

“He does describe how it’s possible to show, using the overarching value of human well-being that some values are counter-productive, while others are not. Valuing knowledge, for example, has good effects, while valuing virginity, maybe not so much.”

Again, all of that can be tested logically, objectively, and empirically once you have determined what “good” means. The crutch of all failed philosophies assert what is “good” without providing logical reasons why that “good” is the real “good”. Evidence is required.

Apart from using one of the words in my post, your comment is not relevant to mine. Now, you may have been exercising a little levity there, but it is remarkably similar, in structure, to many of your responses to posts: not relevant and not in context.”

My commend was very appropriate. It is illogical to claim that there are no absolutes in this conversation – you are using an absolute yourself, which makes your statement self-defeating.
Now maybe you are are not using absolute in the same way I (or a dictionary) would. If so, please clarify what you mean.

“Someone wrote:
“Because humans are feeling social animals, we need morality, and certain principles are necessary for a moral system for a social feeling species (such as reciprocity).”
You wrote:
“How did you determine that reciprocity is a moral absolute?”
You have used a couple of words common to the posters original post, but otherwise your comment does not follow. I have observed you doing that very same thing in abundance. Can you explain why you are convoluting the discussion in this manner? Both examples above are exactly as you pulled them out of a longer post and replied to them.”

One must be careful to draw inferences and notice the un-proved assumptions in statements like the ones listed above.

My points were very important questions for those statements. Otherwise, they are naked assertions.

“If God likes child sacrifice–that IS good because it’s God’s nature to like it. Oh, but God wouldn’t like child sacrifice, you say–it’s not in his nature, because he’s Good. Oh? How do you know?”

He would have to re-veal that to us, or put a sense of a consciousness in us.
You might not like God’s standard, but what we like in that scenario wouldn’t matter too much.

“The writer appeals to God’s being the creator to explain that He, therefore “knows what things are made for,” and so is in a position to say how they should be used. Rape, it explains is wrong *because that’s not what sex is for.* Yikes.”

Do you have an objective standard that tells us that if there is a God and this is his view that its wrong?
And you mis-understood anyways. Rape is wrong because it primarily is an attack against a Holy God since women are created in the image of God, so to attack that image is to make an attack against a Holy God – that’s what the link talks about. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion…

“Besides being an appalling assessment of rape, this just pushes back the dilemma. How does the author *know* that God didn’t create human beings to create a population large enough to sustain human sacrifice? Or to provide rape porn? Any answer must appeal to an external standard to explain why God wouldn’t do such a thing.”

Why?

Like so much theology and Christian apologetics, this “answer” to Euthyphro involves insisting something is true.

No, it is demonstrating a 3rd option, it didn’t prove that 3rd option. But if there is the possibility of a 3rd option the dilemma is not a true dilemma – basic logic.

“And you mis-understood anyways. Rape is wrong because it primarily is an attack against a Holy God since women are created in the image of God, so to attack that image is to make an attack against a Holy God – that’s what the link talks about. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion…”

I drew that conclusion because it said in the link, and I quote:

“A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be.”

So please, don’t accuse me of misunderstanding when the article says, almost word for word, what I claimed it said. It makes no reference to rape being an offense to God, since women are created in the image of God–though, to be honest, this is just as disgusting and offensive a way to denounce rape as the first one. Rape is wrong because women are sentient beings, and because it hurts them profoundly. Period. It’s not wrong *by proxy.*

As for the “3rd option” I showed how it was not a nonsensical option–essentially the simultaneous affirmation of both of the first two options. You can’t rescue Christianity from the dilemma by providing an utterly unworkable “third option” that involves both and neither. So yes, it *is* basic logic–but not in your favour.

Sorry I missed your “Why?” question in that response–though honestly, Zach, you’re starting to sound like a child, who thinks that being able to ask “Why?” makes it a good question.

Put some thought into it. Let me punt it back to you. Can you demonstrate that God’s purpose for humanity is all of the things we happen to call morality *without appeal to any external standard*? If you can’t, your question isn’t a good one.

I’ve been gone a few hours,so forgive me if this has been covered,but I would like to repost my list of questions to Zach,seeing as how his last response was non-responsive,and a rhetorical trick of just answering with his own question,so here goes nothing:

Zach-
1.Can you prove that there is a god?
2.Can you prove that the bible is the word of god?
3.Can you prove that all christians are moral?
4.Can you prove that all christians believe the exact same things are wrong?
5.Can you prove that all atheists are without morals?
6.Can you prove that all things believed to be the word of god are moral?
7.Are there any passages in the old or new testament that are, by your standards, immoral?
8.Why do some christians do immoral things?
9.Why would god not unambiguously reveal himself to ALL of the world,if he wants us all to believe in him and do good?
10.Can you prove that all other religious beliefs are wrong?
11.Can you prove that there is only one god.
12.Can you prove that if there ever was a god,that there still is one?

You have repeatedly asked of us to prove a number of absolutes (most of which we never asserted in the first place) ,now it is time for you to prove your absolutes. If you can’t,then I assert that yours morals are also derived from your subjective belief in the word of god.
And that is fine with me.

I am betting that Zach will once again dodge these questions,as they go right to the heart of his subjective belief system that he deems to be objective, but who knows,maybe a ‘miracle’ will happen.

Your exchanges have caused me to add Harris’s book to my list. Out of curiousity philosofrenzy, how does Harris navigate the topic of competing values (assuming that we agree that they are worthy values to consider) with what the science maycontribute to a given topic?

Harris remains a bit vague on that in some ways, which can be frustrating, but he provides a kind of framework for it. He treats valuing things like any other rule of behaviour, with the possibility of establishing the consequences of valuing some things. To use the example I cited above, the over-valuing of virginity can do harm when women are scorned (read: killed) for not being virgins. Basically, values are defended by reference to the overarching value of the well-being of conscious creatures. All values have to be an extension of the One Value to Value them All. Ahem. Sorry.

He also allows for the possibility of multiple, competing systems of value being able to reach different equilibria (wow, had to look that up), with different values, while being equally capable of promoting well-being (in his metaphor of the moral landscape, he refers to these as ‘multiple peaks’). He doesn’t pretend that there has to be one, right answer, but rather that systems are right in proportion to the well-being brought about by their implementation.

“What bothered me the most is, from what I remember, Harris has a degree in philosophy…. How he doesn’t recognize such elementary mistakes in logic amazes me.”

You are similarly amazed by the logical errors of many others here who have established their credentials. By the way, Zach, and please excuse me if I’ve missed something, but what, exactly, are your credentials?

For the record, I have no credentials in the areas under discussion apart from an enthusiastic desire to learn. And I can spot your logical errors easily. Are you in a correspondence course by mail or online? Maybe through Liberty University or some such thing?

Steven, I would just like to say that I appreciate your showing respect for philosophy as a discipline and your recognition of its importance. Many writers in the skeptic/science community, e.g. Laurence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Jerry Coyne (to a lesser extent), Sam Harris (to some extent), have treated the discipline with disdain. Philosophy is not just important for coming up with ethical theories, to my mind it is or should be at the heart of the skeptical movement. Understanding the nature of argument and logic is crucial to anyone who wants to call themselves a skeptic. I encourage all of your readers to study informal logic either at school or online. Furthermore, philosophers of science tend to spend a lot more time investigating how science actually works than do many working scientists (they just get on with the job). In any discipline there are those who do it badly and there are those who do it well. I think the bad philosophers of science have gotten too much publicity compared to the good philosophers of science (Pigliucci being a good example of the latter). Anyway, three cheers for philosophy.

Thank you for that explanation. While I find it interesting that “proving a negative” is possible, it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that, given a certain assertion that something exists, and there is no evidence forthcoming about its existence, and evidence is all but certain to be present if that thing existed, then what we’re doing is disproving a positive (is that equal to “proving a negative”?).

This is something I run across consistently with religious apologists and creationists, especially when they are challenging atheists on the existence of a deity, that we can’t “prove god doesn’t exist”, which of course to them means that god does exist if we can’t.

That is what is happening here, is that Zach, et al, are proposing proof for objective morality by attempting to prove the non-existence of non-objective morality. They are asking us to give proof that subjective morality exists and objective morality does not, instead of providing evidence and support for their positive claim. This seems an awful lot like affirming the consequent, and its shifting the burden of proof.

If evidence is all but certain to be present given a hypothesis, its absence is very strong evidence the hypothesis is false. The only way it would work is for highly unlikely events to occur, such as the unprecedented cleanup and rebuilding of my house before I got home after giant explosion, in such a way that I wouldn’t notice.

Reflecting on what nybgrus said, I too am an amateur when it comes to philosophy, so I appreciate having an actual philosopher on here to help explain things and correct my misunderstandings. Glad you’re here!

Furthermore, philosophers of science tend to spend a lot more time investigating how science actually works than do many working scientists (they just get on with the job).

This is an astute observation which, unfortunately, does their profession some harm. One trend I’ve noticed in the past few years with my schooling is that many professors have started incorporating a chunk of time at the beginning of semesters to discussing the scientific method and critical thinking, what it means, why we use it, and why it’s the best way of gathering knowledge. While it’s a far cry from a full-on philosophy course, I’m amazed at how many scientists out there seem to have trouble applying what they do in their work to other parts of their lives and other subjects, likely because they’ve never really thought about what it is they use and why.

Unfortunately, I have not seen this trend in other science-based disciplines like engineering and health professions when it comes to their training. I’m not sure why that is, honestly. This is often reflected in nursing where we see a large percentages of professional nurses (and others) who are anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, and pro-woo of various sorts, in spite of all the science courses they took in school.

“So please, don’t accuse me of misunderstanding when the article says, almost word for word, what I claimed it said. It makes no reference to rape being an offense to God, since women are created in the image of God–though, to be honest, this is just as disgusting and offensive a way to denounce rape as the first one. Rape is wrong because women are sentient beings, and because it hurts them profoundly. Period. It’s not wrong *by proxy.”

Can you please provide your objective standard for why I should care that a woman is a sentient being and for why pain to them is of my concern?

“As for the “3rd option” I showed how it was not a nonsensical option–essentially the simultaneous affirmation of both of the first two options. You can’t rescue Christianity from the dilemma by providing an utterly unworkable “third option” that involves both and neither. So yes, it *is* basic logic–but not in your favour.”

You don’t understand it. There is a difference.

And the article is correct that is it wrong because it is a mis-use of what God created sex to be. That is aspects of why it’s wrong – just one.

You don’t like it? Ok, why should we care about what “you” happen to like or dislike? I dislike stuffing and yams, so what?

“Zach, you’re starting to sound like a child, who thinks that being able to ask “Why?” makes it a good question.”

Sorry I won’t accept your dogma over the next guys.

Tmac57
Red Herring – that is your answer.

“You are similarly amazed by the logical errors of many others here who have established their credentials. By the way, Zach, and please excuse me if I’ve missed something, but what, exactly, are your credentials?”

One undergraduate degree and two Master degrees.
Bachelor of Arts
Masters of Divinity
Master of Arts

But regardless of how much education I have done, it doesn’t matter. My claims and Stevens and Sam Harris all stand on their own, not on the educational levels of those who assert them.

“And I can spot your logical errors easily.”

Care to list them without appealing to an objective standard or un-provable first principles/axioms/assumptions/Presuppositions. I have no time for humanist dogma.

Whoa! Quick correction. I have a(n undergraduate) degree in philosophy, but I am not an “actual philosopher” by a long stretch! I’m glad to help where I can, but I think I’ve given the wrong impression of my (meagre!) credentials.

Proving a Negative vs. Proving a Positive vs. Disproving a Positive.

The old analogy is the courtroom. You can prove someone guilty, you can disprove them guilty (rule ‘not-guilty,’ or, sometimes, you can prove them innocent.

If Joe Smith is on trial, a video of Mike Johnson killing the victim would prove “Joe Smith did not kill the victim.” It would prove a negative. So yes, it’s important to make the distinction between the three; and while proving a negative is often the most difficult–and while ‘disproving a positive’ is often all that is needed, it is *possible* to prove a negative in the right circumstances.

Your repetition of the same, already answered objections is getting tiresome. I’m afraid if nothing anyone has said has sunk in, there’s might be no point in continuing to try. If you think it’s a sincere objection to ask “why should I care if rape hurts a woman,” then you’re just not interested in talking about morality: indeed you *aren’t* talking about morality. You’re talking about theological law, and objecting that morality isn’t theological law. You’re all but excusing yourself from the table of discussion with that sort of “objection.”

“You don’t understand it. There is a difference.”

I explained it in detail. Merely saying this doesn’t demonstrate either that I misunderstand it or that you understand it either. A rational person, attempting to argue, would, at this point, attempt to show how I’d misunderstood. Instead, you provide a glib dismissal.

“Sorry I won’t accept your dogma over the next guys.”

What “dogma?” I explained how “Why?” wasn’t an adequate response, and provided you with how I’d given you the burden of proof. Rather than meeting this, you answered with another glib dismissal. You continue to assume you are right, and that merely side-stepping others points is adequate to maintain the rationality of your position. It isn’t.

I’ve made this reply in the hope that this will reach you, and you’ll understand what the burden of effort, at least, rational discourse requires of you. If you continue to reply in kind, assuming the truth of everything you believe, and assuming the rationality of your beliefs is demonstrated by your being able to ask “why?” ad infinitum in response to criticism, this will be the last reply you get from me, at least. Not that this should necessarily bother you any. You seem prepared to declare victory over much less.

Seems to me a fundamental (and grease-the-skids necessary) assumption here is that “objective truth” (inclusive of both the “is” and “ought” flavors) is something that can be fully, permanently “known” via our human senses (and brain).

Color me, well — uh –, skeptical. Insofar as the current stage of human evolution stands. Which is all I have to go on at the moment.

Philosofrenzy “This is related to the “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” thing, which isn’t quite right. If evidence is all but certain to be present given a hypothesis, its absence is very strong evidence the hypothesis is false.”

The statement isn’t always correct, but it has applicability when the evidence at a given point in time is insufficient to answer an empirical question one way or another. It is a way to point out to another person that the lack of evidence may be due to other factors beside the hypothesis being false. The statement does not work if we should expect evidence to be there, given that the hypothesis is true, which I think is what you are saying.

I have used this phrase myself (maybe only once) when someone concluded that there is no life outside of the earth, since he has seen no good evidence that there is. The problem is that I don’t think the lack of evidence much to say about that question at this time, since we have no way to detect life even from the nearest star, let alone in another galaxy

Your repetition of the same, already answered objections is getting tiresome. I’m afraid if nothing anyone has said has sunk in, there’s might be no point in continuing to try.

You are expressing what many of us here have been frustrated about all along. There are over 400 comments on the previous blog entry, and many more on its antecedent, illustrating that very thing. Many others more patient and experienced than I have tried, to no avail. The most we’ve gotten is him aping things we have said to make him seem more intellectual. Not only that, he’s continued to repeat outright factual errors that people have corrected, many times.

The problem with his “philosophy” is that there are no scenarios where his god isn’t present, or that suggests god isn’t involved in some way. It’s simply out of the question. In order to maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of many of the questions posed to him, there is no way to proceed without denying fundamentals of science and logic. What’s really interesting is that he accuses everyone else of doing the same thing!

Anyway, I really don’t think there’s much we can do with him except hope that it’s planted some seeds. I’m just worried we’ve turned him into a Craig clone, a pseudo-intellectual who claims superior logic while at the same time committing the biggest logical fallacies. What’s worse, they think they are using science and we’re misapplying it. That takes some gall to say that in front of real scientists.

I have used this phrase myself (maybe only once) when someone concluded that there is no life outside of the earth, since he has seen no good evidence that there is. The problem is that I don’t think the lack of evidence much to say about that question at this time, since we have no way to detect life even from the nearest star, let alone in another galaxy

I think this goes toward the intellectual honesty of the skeptical position – no one is saying for certain the non-existence of something claimed to exist, but that they don’t believe the likelihood of that thing existing given the evidence. This leaves the door open for the possibility that new evidence may come to light at some future point. So, the intellectually honest position of your friend who claimed that there is no life outside of earth is false considering that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in that case, so you’re correct.

Just like nearly all atheists are also agnostic when it comes to theistic claims, so it is in regards to the claim of objective morality – until there’s evidence for it, we remain skeptical, or outright don’t believe it exists. We don’t say we know for CERTAIN it doesn’t exist, but given we’ve seen no evidence for it as well as evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the likelihood of its existence is very small.

Zach -Why is asking for proof of your objective source for morality a red herring (i.e. irrelevant)?
That’s exactly what this blog post IS about.
You claim God is your objective source.
That is the thrust of all of those 12 questions,to establish that proof.
You are dodging a question that you cannot answer.
Your morals are subjective,just like everyone else’s.

“You are similarly amazed by the logical errors of many others here who have established their credentials. By the way, Zach, and please excuse me if I’ve missed something, but what, exactly, are your credentials?”

You wrote.

“One undergraduate degree and two Master degrees.
Bachelor of Arts
Masters of Divinity
Master of Arts”

From which accredited institutions of education? It matters.

You wrote,

“But regardless of how much education I have done, it doesn’t matter. My claims and Stevens and Sam Harris all stand on their own, not on the educational levels of those who assert them.”

BullSquat. It does matter. Which institutions?

I wrote,

“And I can spot your logical errors easily.”

You wrote,

“Care to list them without appealing to an objective standard or un-provable first principles/axioms/assumptions/Presuppositions. I have no time for humanist dogma.”

Are you nervous because I’m too close to the bone? I thought you liked objective standards. You have no time? You have plainly poured hours into your responses over the past week or so. Go take a ride in the car!

Now you sound like the one who is angry or frustrated. And, no, I won’t bother to list them. They are already completely on record, in detail, in your posts. And they pretty much all fail for the reasons YOU DON’T LIKE OR HAVE TIME FOR.

Sorry, Zach, but you and those who argue like you are all scratching at a precipice you are on the downside of. Your arguments are nothing more than the howling of a canine who cannot gain traction on the slope of reason.

While I agree with you totally in asking those questions, what he’ll throw back at you is that he never actually made the claim that the christian god of the bible is the source of his morals, or that that is what he’s trying to prove.

Instead, what he says he’s trying to prove is that a) objective morals exist, and b) they necessarily require a law bringer (whoever that may be). He admits that what he regards as the law bringer is the christian god of the bible when asked, but he’s not trying to make that a claim (yet).

Of course, when asked to demonstrate that objective morals exist, he goes into the “disproving a negative”, which is that subjective morality does not exist.

I think we can all agree that his ultimate goal is to prove that his christian god of the bible is who the law bringer is, and in effect convert some folks here to his religion, or at least get some of us big bad atheists to admit the possibility (which we do, in fact, just that the possibility is so infinitesimally small as to be as close to certitude as one could get), and thereby earn heaven points and/or bragging rights.

While I agree with you totally in asking those questions, what he’ll throw back at you is that he never actually made the claim that the christian god of the bible is the source of his morals, or that that is what he’s trying to prove.

Well if he makes THAT claim,then what is the ‘source code’ where we can all examine these ‘objective’ morals,if not the christian bible? If we cannot have access to them then they are up to the individual to sort out…i.e. subjective.

We’ve appealed to him numerous times to support his absolute objective morals necessarily brought by a law giver claim, to no avail. His only intention seems to be to prove objective morality by disproving the non-existence of objective morality with the assumption that the only possibilities are the binary 100% objective or 100% non-objective.

Most of us find this approach to be absurd to the extreme, but no amount of explaining or discussing seems to sway him from this course. I think we all know what’s going on here, so at this point I really do think we’re just feeding a troll who wants to have the bragging rights of “sticking it to those atheists”.

RisF- I think you are dead on, I just wanted to put a fine point on it,because the TLDR responses become so involved that it tends to dilute the argument. I like to boil things down to the essence so there is less wiggle room for rhetorical evasion.

tmac – I totally agree, and cutting through it was what I was trying to do yesterday in the previous thread, but that got everyone nowhere, so here we are. And it’s true that the argument is being diluted, but at this point it’s really all academic rhetoric for our own edification because I think everyone realizes that Zach, et al, has no intention of demonstrating his claim.

Well, it was a productive rest of my day at least. Gave a good talk, had some beers and a delicious dinner, and now unwinding catching up with the comments. And wooo-boy howdy!

First off:

@rez: (in regards to)

Get something straight so perhaps you could lose some of that hubris and display a little humility for a change. You didn’t instruct us. You weren’t the one who taught anyone anything. And you are NOT educated, at least on certain subjects (science and logic immediately jump out).
Rather, you’ve been instructional. That’s all. Y

Yes, you are correct. I suppose I’ll have to be a bit more careful with those who show a lack of intellectual honesty. At least you and those who really matter could clearly understand what I had meant.

Can you please provide your objective standard for why I should care that a woman is a sentient being and for why pain to them is of my concern?

Probably one of the more repugnant things to spew from his fingers.

The funniest part is that when asked “Can you please provideyour objective standard for why I should care what God says or thinks” we hear nothing but crickets.

Chirp. Chirp.

And the article is correct that is it wrong because it is a mis-use of what God created sex to be. That is aspects of why it’s wrong – just one

Philosofrenzy: I read your link and it says [xxx]

Zach: No it doesn’t. You don’t understand. Oh but it still says exactly what you said.

I genuinely have trouble wrapping my mind around such obstinate inability to see and understand what is beyond plainly there.

One undergraduate degree and two Master degrees.
Bachelor of Arts
Masters of Divinity
Master of Arts

That explains it. Well, my masters in unicornology and sub-specialty in leprauchanology taught me you are a dishonest sack of…

And still…

I am leery of discussing an issue like this with you, because I sense it is more than just an intellectual conversation for you, it is a personal one that is emotional.
If you mean my exact view of morality with a comment on homosexuality, well, I’ll be writing an article on in soon, so you’ll have to bear with me (morality this, not homosexuality – though I will probably write on that soon, just gotta think of a blog name).

Nope. You just can’t possibly do it. Somewhere on the order of 1000 comments later and you still can’t actually defend a single one of your points. Not one.

And don’t dodge you slimy bastard. If you want to call “harm is bad” a moral claim, you can’t say “homosexuality is bad” is not a moral claim. You couldn’t even actually say if you think that homosexuality is bad. You won’t touch it, because you know you can’t defend it, and that any one of us here would absolutely rip it to shreds if you tried.

And yeah right. “Just got to think of a name.” Why don’t you call it “Zach’s blog” and then link us your response. Do you honestly think any of us give two hoots about the name of the blog?

It is just downright scary that there are actuallly more people who think the way that you do. My only comfort is that y’all will be weeded out via that natural selection and evolution you don’t believe in. Delicious irony.

All of your posts consist of quoting something someone has said and then making a quick response. Quote -> response -> quote -> response -> quote -> response. It makes it look like you read comments others have made until you see a response to which you can give one of your standard responses. The trouble with that is that you never get the whole meaning of what people are saying, and it also means that you never change any of your standard responses. Your responses haven’t changed despite your adversaries having put flesh on the bones of their original arguments.

I don’t know what the solution is, but it hasn’t been worth reading your posts for some considerable time now. In fact I’m not going to read any more of them unless and until you change your tactic. It’s like ground hog day with every single post. I mean aren’t you sick of repeating yourself over and over again? You have seen “Ground Hog Day” haven’t you? If you haven’t take a look. It might be instructive.

“Zach -Why is asking for proof of your objective source for morality a red herring (i.e. irrelevant)?
That’s exactly what this blog post IS about.
You claim God is your objective source.”

This blog post isn’t about me defending my specific view of morality – Steven claims his system is correct, I am here to demonstrate that his wrong, not that mine is right. I’ll post my view on my own blog soon enough. If a scientist asserts that all dinosaurs evolved into toaster ovens, and other scientist disagree, him getting mad and asking for proof for what exactly happened to them is irrelevant – his view is on trial.

Steven’s view is on trial here, not mine. And trying to focus the conversation onto that is just a way to distract from the holes in Steven’s view.

“Are you nervous because I’m too close to the bone? I thought you liked objective standards.”

You are confused, I like objective standards, but Steven and others are appealing to objective standards without realizing it when they say that suffering is bad is universal truism.

Suffering is bad cannot derive a moral system that is based on logic for it assumes the answer to the question in the first place – how does one determine morality – that’s illogical and nonsensical – the question is how do we determine morality, and simply answering that question with, “well by analyzing all choices through the morality I came up with,” is pretty weak.

You don’t get to make up your foundation for morality and then build everything else on it when your foundation (the very question we are trying to figure out in the first place) is based on assuming your answer to the question.

“Now you sound like the one who is angry or frustrated. And, no, I won’t bother to list them. They are already completely on record, in detail, in your posts. And they pretty much all fail for the reasons YOU DON’T LIKE OR HAVE TIME FOR.”

Again, I’m not mad, you misunderstood my posts. And again, this is the typical response from anyone not named Steven here,
The masses: “Zach we pointed out that you are wrong, you have sooooo many problems.”
Me: “Like what?”
The masses: “SOOOOO MANY!!!”
“Me: k.”
The masses: “See, HE BELIEVES IN SKY FAIRIES AND WON”T TRY TO PROVE IT! GET HIM!”
Me: “sigh”

Bgoudie said,

“And yet somehow you expect that human beings have time for the utter drek that is dogmatic assertion that there is a “lawgiver” or an absolute beyond human creation set of morals.”
You don’t accept dogma from the religious folk, but they are to accept your faith based claims? Double standard.

“Zach is a troll, and particularly deceitful one at that. Feeding him is mistake.”

Keep childish posts like this up and you will be in the ignore category with rezistnzisfutl. I am not a troll, I am pointing out errors I perceive in Steven’s view.
If I were a troll do you think Steven would be so stupid as to create an entirely new moral explanation and blog posts from my critiques?

“Well if he makes THAT claim,then what is the ‘source code’ where we can all examine these ‘objective’ morals,if not the christian bible? If we cannot have access to them then they are up to the individual to sort out…i.e. subjective. I will wait for Zach’s response.“

I have said several times, posted a chart to provide a visual demonstration, etc. asserting the claim I am attempting to make here, that morality must be at least objective, or doesn’t exist.</b< I think we can prove that much by pointing out the flaws in Steven’s subjective position. For if subjective is proven to not work, we are left only with objective or doesn’t exist.

I never said I could prove to you that morality is by default objective and based on the Bible – I never tried to. So asking me to is a Red Herring to this conversation. I am only trying to convince you that morality is not subjective and must be objective or not exist. Remember, Sam Harris believes morality is objective – I agree with him, but where he goes after that I disagree. So asserting that I am saying Steven is wrong cuz there’s a sky daddy who did it all is a straw man.

“Well, it was a productive rest of my day at least. Gave a good talk, had some beers and a delicious dinner, and now unwinding catching up with the comments. And wooo-boy howdy!”

Awesome, glad it went well!

“Probably one of the more repugnant things to spew from his fingers.
The funniest part is that when asked “Can you please provideyour objective standard for why I should care what God says or thinks” we hear nothing but crickets.”

It is repugnant, I agree, but the question is still valid – just because it’s shocking to your senses doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask it, we MUST ask it. Not everyone believes it wrong, so why do you? How do we justify our view as opposed to theirs? Power and authority, is that all we can appeal to?
Evidence only please. Not mere assertions that harm is bad – humanistic dogma is not proof.
I can’t figure out why you guys can’t figure out that my view doesn’t matter. Steven’s view stands and falls on its own. Is it really that broken that you can’t do anything but throw back with a “no you”?

Read what I just wrote in response to another commentator. I agree with Sam Harris that morality must be objective (or doesn’t exist). What it absolutely cannot be is subjective since it is nonsensical. That is all I am trying to assert. Anything beyond that is not what I am trying to assert or convince you of with evidence.

“That explains it. Well, my masters in unicornology and sub-specialty in leprauchanology taught me you are a dishonest sack of…”

This is childish and rude. If you don’t agree with someone that’s one thing, but this is angry atheist e-thug nonsense. I will no longer be reading your posts since you chose to act this way.

“I don’t know what the solution is, but it hasn’t been worth reading your posts for some considerable time now. In fact I’m not going to read any more of them unless and until you change your tactic.”

That’s fine, if you can’t understand my points then this isn’t going to be a fruitful endeavor – thankfully Steven understand me, hence the new blog post on this – we just disagree and I can respectfully agree to disagree with him while still having discussion.
I have pointed out clearly that you can’t assume any first principles since first principles are the answer to the question itself – it’s circular. No one wants to engage that point directly and responds like I’m the devil because I won’t grant that rape is bad just because they said it is so that makes it bad. You say morality tells us that harm is bad… what? How does it do that? Because morality assumes we need to get along? No it doesn’t, prove this.
Morality is which actions are bad and which are good, so harm is bad you assert? Ok, well not everyone agrees with your subjective morality and they hold other subjective views, so why should I accept your views over theirs?
Subjective morality is nonsensical. At least go with Sam Harris.
Dogma, only answered by dogma doesn’t fly when a religious person does, at least be consistent in your skepticism.

“The masses: “Zach we pointed out that you are wrong, you have sooooo many problems.”
Me: “Like what?”
The masses: “SOOOOO MANY!!!”
“Me: k.”
The masses: “See, HE BELIEVES IN SKY FAIRIES AND WON”T TRY TO PROVE IT! GET HIM!”
Me: “sigh””

This caricaturing confirms everything we’ve said.

That this is the way he portrays our specific and detailed questions and claims, and his evasive answers–that he portrays himself as the lone, sensible, rational hero–makes it obvious there’s no further room for dialogue.

That he pretends we haven’t made specific objections, and asked specific questions, or given you specific arguments, despite our *repeatedly pointing them out when he misses them*, confirms what BilllyJoe7 aptly described: his tendency to skim others’ posts for something he could object to, while utterly missing the point of everything anyone says.

Zach, The fact that Dr. Novella took the time to respond to you has nothing to do with your own troll like behaviors. It doesn’t mark his as stupid to try and explain his position on the topics to you, oh to be sure it was perhaps overly optimistic once it became clear that you do not understand even the basic concepts of logical discourse and reason.

You have spent a considerable amount of time declaring that you done something (proving objective morality exists and disproving a subjective but still viable system of moral codes) despite having provided nothing more than a misunderstanding of what constitutes the basic language of logical discourse and a great deal of “no it isn’t”.

You’ve clung to a false dichotomy despite many posts showing clearly the fault in basic premise. You’ve dismissed the points of others with wrongly applied definitions and false claims of logical fallacies. You’ve used that classic piece of rhetorical reversal so loved by those of religious bent by claiming that everyone opposed to your position is just acting on faith and dogma. You’ve been smug and insulting at many points to many posters. And as the final cherry on top, you’ve shown the temerity to claim you caused Steven to change his position.

These are all the actions of a troll rather than someone who actually wished to discuss a philosophical point with others.

Again I find it telling the way you use the phrases “humanist dogma” “post-modern” and “moral relativism”, treating them as they magically win your side of a debate. It’s like a Fox pundit tossing out the terms socialism, Marxist, or collectivist, knowing that their sheep like followers will agree to hate whatever the lables are placed on, even when they are wildly inaccurate.

Here’s the thing about you part of these discussions that has left many of us with a bad taste in our mouths. You claim to prize the use of logic and reason and yet you cling to the premise that the human intellect is incapable of using such to construct a moral code to live by. You postulate that there must be a supernatural entity beyond our true ken who must guide us. It’ insulting to both human dignity and the entire pursuit of knowledge and improvement.

Well, it was only a matter of time when he’d claim to be the sheep amongst the wolves and hang himself up on his cross. Double heaven points there for staying true to his faith before being castigated by us heathens.

I always get a good chuckle out of religious apologists who claim persecution because they can’t convince others of their beliefs or when they’re mocked for their thick and willful ignorance. Because we don’t accept his baseless claims and call him on his total and utter BS, he’s the victim.

Zach, get a grip, an education, and some humility. A little introspection never hurt anyone.

Zach: Can you please provide your objective standard for why I should care that a woman is a sentient being and for why pain to them is of my concern?

nybgrus: Probably one of the more repugnant things to spew from his fingers.

Zach: It is repugnant, I agree, but the question is still valid – just because it’s shocking to your senses doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask it, we MUST ask it. Not everyone believes it wrong, so why do you?

Would it help if nybgrus were to admit that it’s not “wrong” in any absolute sense of the word? that it’s only “wrong” in the sense that he deems it repugnant in most, if not all, situations?*

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I suppose that one can say that obedience to God’s will – as expressed by scriptural characters, like Moses and Jesus – is a kind of absolute standard (or at least that that’s one’s intent), although I think it’s more accurate to say that it’s a path that one has chosen to follow in life – one that’s quite different from the kinds of paths that secular folk tend to choose.

In any case, so long as the god of Judeo-Christian Scripture makes exceptions for rape in certain situations, it’s erroneous to say that rape is absolutely wrong according to Christian ethics.

* In philosophy-speak, I believe this is known as a “non-cognitivist” stance in meta-ethics, which holds that “ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions.” [source]

Amendment: I think it’s only fair to say that the path of “obedience to God’s will…” is only a choice if one voluntarily adopts it as an adult. However, if one is religiously indoctrinated as a child, it doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me.

“His only intention seems to be to prove objective morality by disproving the non-existence of objective morality with the assumption that the only possibilities are the binary 100% objective or 100% non-objective.”

That is a false dichotomy, but you can make a true dichotomy of the topic: morality is 100% objective or it is not. When described this way, he is stuck demonstrating his position or eliminating all the possible alternatives, i.e. the rest of the spectrum of possibilities. He is done neither (and the latter is impossible from a practical perspective)

Zach- “asserting the claim I am attempting to make here, that morality must be at least objective, or doesn’t exist. I think we can prove that much by pointing out the flaws in Steven’s subjective position. For if subjective is proven to not work, we are left only with objective or doesn’t exist.”

But this approach doesn’t work even in theory, because Steven’s position (although I believe is accurate), is not the only alternative to yours. Also you reject Steve’s description because it is not 100% objective, which is your view. In other words your argument is that his view of morality doesn’t work because it is not 100% objective, therefore morality is 100% objective.

Let me describe this in one sentence:

You are asserting your position, using that assertion to ‘refute’ an alternate position, and using that ‘refutation’ as evidence for your original assertion.

Circular argument much?

You need to demonstrate that you have good evidence for your absolute objective morality, which you have not done in the past week, which indicates to me that you realize your position is weak and will not stand up to scrutiny. Let’s just say that I am not surprised

Zach: It is repugnant, I agree, but the question is still valid – just because it’s shocking to your senses doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask it, we MUST ask it. Not everyone believes it wrong, so why do you?
Would it help if nybgrus were to admit that it’s not “wrong” in any absolute sense of the word? that it’s only “wrong” in the sense that he deems it repugnant in most, if not all, situations?*

This is much more accurate than anything Zach has approximated.

I guess it can all boil down to the fact that there is no such thing as an absolute “wrong” or “right” – those words can only be used in a specific context. Now, in certain cases almost all circumstances will have a particular action (rape, murder, child abuse) be considered “wrong.” Others will almost always be “right” (kindness, generosity, love). But in each case, one can think of a hypoethtical wherein the “wrongness” and “rightness” can be reversed.

Dan Barker was debating someone (I can’t recall who at the moment it was a couple of years ago I watched the debate) and was cornered into this concept. He was given a contrived situation wherein an alien race came and said that they would wipe out the entire human race unless he, Dan Barker, raped a young girl (or something like that). Would that still be “wrong” to do? Would it be an immoral action?

Barker asked if we knew for sure the aliens could do this. Yes. Could we possibly do anything else to stop them? No. Could we be absolutely certain they would live up to their end of the bargain and leave us completely alone after? Yes. It dragged on for some minutes with obvious distress on Barker’s face.

In that incredibly contrived scenario, yes, the rape became the “right” thing to do and morally correct. The theist then crowed about the incredible horribleness of the atheist position as if he had won the debate.

But such exercises demonstrate exactly why no absolute can exist and how reasonable people can always try and find a way out. Only when locked into certainty about important facets of the hypothetical does the calculus change.

The funniest part is that even the theological perspective (all of them) provides the exact same subjective moral debate with exceptions to ever single moral precept. As has been outlined above, murder is bad, except when God says it isn’t. Slavery is good, unless you beat your slaves too hard. Raping a man is bad, so rape my daughter instead. It’s all right there in the exact same source they claim to provide this better morality with.

You claim to have come here to try and disprove Dr. Novella’s stance and nothing else which is why you won’t even put up your stance. Not only is that a lie, but I can prove it.

Firstly, very few of your arguments have been direct attempts to disprove our stance. And when they are, you misapply the rules of logic, reason, and evidence to do so. Most of your attempts have clearly been to demonstrate why only an objective morality can exist.

But most importantly – you have claimed countless times you have disproven our stance. Why are you still here? You’ve accomplished your mission, as you claim it. We may disagree with you, but you yourself have claimed quite clearly that you have disproven just about every facet of our position. So why are you still here?

If it is because you want to convince us that our position is incorrect, then we have given you a way to do so – demonstrate yours to be correct! If you could do so, then we would abandon our position and come to yours. That is the way that we here operate.

Of course, much more learned and practiced theologians can’t produce convincing arguments and you know that defending your own position is much more difficult than sniping at ours, so it seems obvious to me (to us really) why you refuse to do so. That and your completely wrong idea that proving us wrong proves you right. No, Zach. Even if you did prove us wrong and we accepted that, it still wouldn’t prove you right. You have to actually provide evidence for your claim. You don’t just get to “win” by default.

You won’t even attempt to outline your position on a single point – homosexuality. You won’t even say what your stance on it is (“good” or “bad”). You are disingenous here – you have no desire for actual debate or learning. You just want to see how long you can snipe at us “smug atheists” to try and win points (whether with your friends, church mates, or your sky fairy).

If any of us disagreed with Dr. Novella we would be willing to lay out all our ideas on the chopping block. In fact, we would want to. Having your ideas dissected and analyzed is the best way to actually see how correct they are, learn, and grow. When I need an important paper edited, for example, I know who my true friends are and send it to them – because they will mercilessly destroy it in every detail they can. That is how people who actually want to learn and make their ideas better operate. You absolutely clearly don’t want that – you just want to justify clinging to your idea and keep your conclusion at all costs. But hey, that’s what a Masters of Divinity will do for you. Perhaps you should get a Masters in Philosophy or one in Science, it will serve you a lot better.

nybgrus- ‘Sofi’s choice’ and the ‘trolley dilemma’ are other moral quandraries that show the difficulty in forming absolute ways of resolving the problems we face in society.
Imperfect as it is,reasoning through logic must be attempted and brought to bear to solve our problems,because it is obvious that no ‘perfect’ answers are fourth coming from some objective source…unless Zach can finally give us the ‘source code’ of course.

Suffering is bad cannot derive a moral system that is based on logic for it assumes the answer to the question in the first place – how does one determine morality – that’s illogical and nonsensical – the question is how do we determine morality, and simply answering that question with, “well by analyzing all choices through the morality I came up with,” is pretty weak.

The funny thing is that this is a rough approximation of what we are actually saying. You state it is “pretty weak.” OK, it is weak. Give us something stronger. Except you refuse to.

You also refuse to understand that this is exactly what science is and mathematics and everthing else. These are all human constructs. Science makes assumptions at it base that it cannot prove (methodological naturalism, for instance) and then uses that to continue. The validation that the assumptions are correct is based on the obviously incredibly success that science has had in describing our universe and generating new technologis for us.

Mathematics is the same (I keep providing you evidence of this) – we assume certain foundational premises and definitions and then they are validated as correct by the repeated succeses of math to describe the universe and its processes.

Is this the best possibly imaginable way of doing things? Probably not. Is it absolutely perfect, yielding perfect results? Definitely not. Is there a better way of doing it? Not that we have found. You have a better one? Show us. But prove it please, don’t just say so.

Of course, the notion that everything – including morality – is a human construct is anathema to the theist. If morality wasn’t absolute and objective, that means they would not only have to work harder to be moral but that the responsibility for it would rest squarely on their shoulders. It is much easier to offload that burden and an invisible sky fairy (or unproven naturalistic absolute morality – as if that makes sense anyways) is a convenient place to offload. Of course, as we all know, what God says always happen to coincide quite nicely with whatever the person saying he speaks for God already believes. Hence the 38,000 sects of Christianity alone.

Wouldn’t it be ironic that if there were a god,it turned out that she bestowed on us an ability to use logic and reason for ourselves to understand what is right and wrong,and that those who reject these gifts were the actual sinners?

Imperfect as it is,reasoning through logic must be attempted and brought to bear to solve our problems,because it is obvious that no ‘perfect’ answers are fourth coming from some objective source…unless Zach can finally give us the ‘source code’ of course.

Even then I think we have demonstrated that there still cannot reasonably be an absolute morality, even if an objective “source code” is found. The only thing Zach’s position would effectively do is move the burden of logical analysis from us to “something” else. The process still must be the same he just refuses to do the process himself, even though by any conceivable perspective even if his position were true we would still have to do the same process since we would, by definition, have to discover and interpret the “absolute” and “objective” morality. No matter what, the ultimate burden still rests with us, no matter how much he wishes to push that responsibility off our shoulders.

By acknowledging it is wholly our burden, we are forced to make better decisions. By pushing it off, we can excuse poor ones. And of course, justify whatever we want to be the case by claiming something “beyond” us is actually having the final say.

“I don’t hate homosexuals! I really wish that God didn’t say it was sin. But he says to hate the sin, not the sinner, and he says that homosexuality is a sin. There’s just nothing I can do about that!”

Guess I am more powerful and more moral than your god, because I certainly can do something about it.

“Good” is what humanity decides it is, but that doesn’t mean humans are completely free of underlying “first principles”. Humanity measures and refines the definition of “good” (consciously or unconsciously) using all the tools and values that biological and social evolution have instilled.

A different intelligent species could very well have a different view of “good”. Indeed, different human societies have had fundamentally different interpretations of “good”.

So, when Zach says: “I have pointed out clearly that you can’t assume any first principles since first principles are the answer to the question itself – it’s circular.”

he is ignoring that evolution DOES provide a source for the basic values or “first principles” upon which our morality (for good or ill) is founded. His avoidance of this, in the moral landscape of Western secular skeptical intellectuals, is an affront to our evolution-generated facility for reason and is therefore “bad”.

“If any of us disagreed with Dr. Novella we would be willing to lay out all our ideas on the chopping block. In fact, we would want to.”

This is certainly true for me. I am much more interested in disagreements I have with people whose opinions I respect the most, or with people who I believe otherwise think clearly. In these circumstances, I think there is more likely to be something to learn (from either side), when there is a disagreement between people who don’t typically disagree. Sometimes this is a merely piece of information or way of approaching the topic that one person has that leads to a different conclusion. Of course there is the outlier like Zach, for whom I feel compelled to comment for other reasons.

I’ve been following this blog for years and I have posted comments nearly everytime I disagreed with what was written. In truth, this happens very rarely, because I think he is spot on nearly all of his posts. It is clear that he has spent time thinking about what he writes, because it shows in his writing

“The funny thing is that this is a rough approximation of what we are actually saying. You state it is “pretty weak.” OK, it is weak…”

An interesting feature of “beginnings” is where to “begin”.

Thomas Edison said (paraphrased) he never failed at how to make a successful incandescent light bulb, rather he succeeded in finding many ways how to not make a successful incandescent light bulb.

It is fascinating to look at our history and see how this concept is borne out time after time. Many successful “how to not do somethings” followed by a successful “how to do that thing” followed by improvements on that success as we learn and understand still more. It IS the way that works.

I can’t see any philosophy or logical argument holding its own very well against that much evidence. That success is what forms the might (and makes right) of this moral position.

I’ve been following this blog for years and I have posted comments nearly everytime I disagreed with what was written. In truth, this happens very rarely, because I think he is spot on nearly all of his posts. It is clear that he has spent time thinking about what he writes, because it shows in his writing

There is also something to be said for him having done this for a while in many formats. You start getting good at it after a while. I’ve certainly improved my own comments and thinking over the 3 years I’ve been doing this pretty actively. The humility here is that we all – even Dr. Novella – recognizes and even embraces the fact that we have more to learn. Zach thinks he’s already got it figured out and just needs to find a way for us dumb ol’ atheists to see it.

Thomas Edison said (paraphrased) he never failed at how to make a successful incandescent light bulb, rather he succeeded in finding many ways how to not make a successful incandescent light bulb.

My sister once told me “An expert is someone who has failed the most times in a specific field of study.”

Perhaps she was just rephrasing Edison.

But of course Edison’s quote (and my sister’s) actually reflect the reality of evolution in all respects – failure after failure until something mildly succesful comes along followed by rapid improvement to a fitness peak.

“And as the final cherry on top, you’ve shown the temerity to claim you caused Steven to change his position”

So changing your views when they are critiqued is a bad thing in your world… ok
Bgoudie,
You are either a troll or something much worse, I’m done reading your posts.

“Would it help if nybgrus were to admit that it’s not “wrong” in any absolute sense of the word? that it’s only “wrong” in the sense that he deems it repugnant in most, if not all, situations?*”

I don’t think it would. He’s still only saying he and a bunch of others find the color brown icky and repugnant. I assert that any claim below pure evil (derived from my objective standard), results in a low view of rape’s evilness.

Murder is wrong, Killing is not. Nearly everyone in every culture understands this distinctions.
But regardless, do you have an objective standard to show that either are wrong? Or do you just subjectively not care for them?

“I think it’s only fair to say that the path of “obedience to God’s will…” is only a choice if one voluntarily adopts it as an adult. However, if one is religiously indoctrinated as a child, it doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me.”

In Western culture, it is used to be that you were born into your religion, now, you might be born into a Christian/catholic/agnostic/etc. world view, then when you are an adult you generally decide.

“That is a false dichotomy, but you can make a true dichotomy of the topic: morality is 100% objective or it is not. When described this way, he is stuck demonstrating his position or eliminating all the possible alternatives, i.e. the rest of the spectrum of possibilities. He is done neither (and the latter is impossible from a practical perspective).”

“Also you reject Steve’s description because it is not 100% objective, which is your view. In other words your argument is that his view of morality doesn’t work because it is not 100% objective, therefore morality is 100% objective.”

No, but objective statement are 100% true or 100% false. You ignore this. And asking the question, “how one determines morality, and then assuming the first principle (nothing more than answering the question with a I said so), and applying all moral questions to that premise does not make your answer for, “what determines morality” a part objective and part subjective answer. It only makes your application of the answer objective- which doesn’t matter.

“You are asserting your position, using that assertion to ‘refute’ an alternate position, and using that ‘refutation’ as evidence for your original assertion.”

How?

“You need to demonstrate that you have good evidence for your absolute objective morality, which you have not done in the past week, which indicates to me that you realize your position is weak and will not stand up to scrutiny. Let’s just say that I am not surprised”

No, this article is about how morality is subjective, according to Steven. Morality is objective because if it subjective you can’t make a system that works. That’s the point, and if you were aware, this is how all philosophers discuss the issue, so saying that I am making a false dichotomy is false.

“So, when Zach says: “I have pointed out clearly that you can’t assume any first principles since first principles are the answer to the question itself – it’s circular.”
he is ignoring that evolution DOES provide a source for the basic values or “first principles” upon which our morality (for good or ill) is founded. His avoidance of this, in the moral landscape of Western secular skeptical intellectuals, is an affront to our evolution-generated facility for reason and is therefore “bad”.”

Ok, so differentiate human and lion morality for us please – again, no faith based assertions please.
So what’s the source? Why are some actions right and some wrong? Why aren’t other animals held to this morality? Why are humans an exception?

Ok, so differentiate human and lion morality for us please – again, no faith based assertions please.
So what’s the source? Why are some actions right and some wrong? Why aren’t other animals held to this morality? Why are humans an exception?

The power of rational thought, the trait of empathy, and entirely different social evolution.

Why is the different between lions and humans so hard for you to grasp?

“Zach: Can you please provide your objective standard for why I should care that a woman is a sentient being and for why pain to them is of my concern?

nybgrus: Probably one of the more repugnant things to spew from his fingers.

Zach: It is repugnant, I agree, but the question is still valid – just because it’s shocking to your senses doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask it, we MUST ask it. Not everyone believes it wrong, so why do you?”

Zach gets the whole thing wrong. If there is an “objective moral standard”, then all observers and users of morality must reach the same moral conclusion given the facts of the situation.

If rape is to have an objective moral value, then that objective moral value must be the same for each observer, including the rape victim, the perpetrator, the uninvolved bystander, the victim’s parents, the victim’s husband, the victim’s unconceived and unborn children, the victim’s “child of rape” that might be conceived during the rape.

If the facts of a situation are accurately known, then any disagreement either comes from dishonesty (including irrationality) or from unshared priors.

The victim and perpetrator do not agree on the moral value of being raped. The reason they don’t agree is because the perpetrator’s prior is that what the victim wants and feels does not enter into the moral value calculation, but the perpetrator’s wants and feelings do.

This is how theists disagree with non-theists about the moral value of an event. Theists have different priors, they feel that if they feel that God says to do it, then it is moral. It doesn’t matter that they can’t prove that God said it is moral, if they feel that God says it is moral, then for them it is.

YECs go one step farther and feel that even trying to think about what is moral, independent of what they feel God says, is in itself immoral because humans only acquired that capacity by disobeying God and eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God did not want them to do. Presumably the original construction of humans by God did not include the knowledge of good and evil, so presumably the “image” of God that God used to make humans did not include that capacity, so it is wrong for humans to try and apply the capacity to know good and evil now (as Zach is demonstrating).

From the YEC perspective, the ability to reason, to know the difference between good and evil is an immoral trait because God didn’t want humans to have it. It is like a “virus”, which has “infected” humans. The Bible can then be seen as “anti-virus software”, trying to “purge” the “virus” of the knowledge of good and evil from humans. As a number of theists have demonstrated, it can be quite effective for some.

This also explains the inability of YECs to think logically and to argue rationally. They think it is immoral to do so. Their goal is to purge rationality from humans.

“There is also something to be said for him having done this for a while in many formats. You start getting good at it after a while. I’ve certainly improved my own comments and thinking over the 3 years I’ve been doing this pretty actively.”

One of the topics that I like to reinforce is the importance of hard work in any form of excellence. I have heard Dr Novella reference this concept in the past, and I think it is a very important to reinforce. Our culture (and I suspect in many) over-values talent relative to hard work, which I believe is detrimental given that we only have control over the latter. It is also incorrect at most levels of competence- the primary exceptions I think are at the extremes. If someone is very good at something people tend to attribute that skill to an innate talent, when the truth is that person probably works his/her @ss off to generate and maintain that level of skill. While certainly Dr Novella has an aptitude for communicating ideas, the reason why he is so good at it is that he really works at being good at it.

“You are asserting your position, using that assertion to ‘refute’ an alternate position, and using that ‘refutation’ as evidence for your original assertion.”

How?

Really, Zach? Thats all you have is a one word question? I have explained how and I believe it is fairly obvious. You have made little attempt at understanding, and I can’t do the work for you. I can’t open up your brain and put the ideas inside, you have to do some work yourself.

No, but objective statement are 100% true or 100% false. You ignore this

No, they are not. Absolutely, fundamentally, NOT. We have tried to demonstrate this many times. It as absolutely reasonable, possible, and common to be objectively partially correct. We aren’t ignoring it. We are saying you are wrong and have given numerous examples. You are the one ignoring us. On this specific point and innumerable others. Heck, you didn’t even have a correct working definition of the word “objective” when you started this conversation!

A great book on the topic that got me started on it all a few years back: Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.

Really, Zach? Thats all you have is a one word question? I have explained how and I believe it is fairly obvious. You have made little attempt at understanding, and I can’t do the work for you. I can’t open up your brain and put the ideas inside, you have to do some work yourself.

And then he gets upset that we call one word responses childish. How? Oh, I dunno, maybe through the thousand or so posts leading up to this point? Just maybe.

Since NAA is no longer here, I will extend my very simple question to you. Why should we care about God’s [wishes / purposes / creative intentions / or whatever you might call his will]? Unless you have an answer for that, all of this other stuff is just peripheral distraction.

“The power of rational thought, the trait of empathy, and entirely different social evolution.

If you don’t understand why what you just wrote doesn’t answer my question, I’m not sure what else to tell you. You are convinced that empathy is > hatred – and yet humans have both traits and must decipher which way to choose. You favor empathy without giving a foundation for it, other than you think so/like it. I am not interesting in what you think since it is only based on what you happen to like. Why should I favor what you like over Bob the human butcher’s?

I agree with you that we should show empathy, but why? Rational thought doesn’t tell us empathy is the right actions, it can’t. It can only tell us which actions are showing empathy and which are not.

“Why is the different between lions and humans so hard for you to grasp?”

Because it is a naked assertion.

Zach gets the whole thing wrong. If there is an “objective moral standard”, then all observers and users of morality must reach the same moral conclusion given the facts of the situation.

Why?
That doesn’t follow. Not everyone once believed the world revolved around the sun – and I’m sure some reject that notion still, someone somewhere probably does. So was that objective fact false until everyone agrees?

I don’t think you understand the difference in terminology between objective and subjective – I provided definitions in my comments in the last post – or just go to any standard dictionary. I think you are using the words incorrectly.

“If the facts of a situation are accurately known, then any disagreement either comes from dishonesty (including irrationality) or from unshared priors.”

Depends if you are talking about objective truth or subjective truth. And whether or not I am willing to agree that me and John will never agree on something, for whatever reason, so I agree to be civil and disagree with him and no longer argue my views to him.

“The reason they don’t agree is because the perpetrator’s prior is that what the victim wants and feels does not enter into the moral value calculation, but the perpetrator’s wants and feelings do.”

So? Does a Lion take into account the baby lions from the alpha male he just chased off when he eats them? No. So why should we care about other person’s feelings?

“This is how theists disagree with non-theists about the moral value of an event. Theists have different priors, they feel that if they feel that God says to do it, then it is moral. It doesn’t matter that they can’t prove that God said it is moral, if they feel that God says it is moral, then for them it is.
YECs go one step farther and feel that even trying to think about what is moral, independent of what they feel God says, is in itself immoral because humans only acquired that capacity by disobeying God and eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God did not want them to do. Presumably the original construction of humans by God did not include the knowledge of good and evil, so presumably the “image” of God that God used to make humans did not include that capacity, so it is wrong for humans to try and apply the capacity to know good and evil now (as Zach is demonstrating).
From the YEC perspective, the ability to reason, to know the difference between good and evil is an immoral trait because God didn’t want humans to have it. It is like a “virus”, which has “infected” humans. The Bible can then be seen as “anti-virus software”, trying to “purge” the “virus” of the knowledge of good and evil from humans. As a number of theists have demonstrated, it can be quite effective for some.
This also explains the inability of YECs to think logically and to argue rationally. They think it is immoral to do so. Their goal is to purge rationality from humans.“

If you don’t have anything better than building straw man’s based on this kind of nonsensical uneducated dribble, leave the conversation to others.
This is the worst post I have seen anyone make yet in these comments.

JJ Borgman

“Zach,
So, you claim morality is objective. Do I have it right?
Your logical proof of this is that morality cannot be not-objective. Do I have it right?
Your definition of “objective” includes the characteristic of being absolute. Do I have that right?
Please show me your work in a way (remedial) I can understand. I’m a blue-collar guy, but I do okay with moderately complicated ideas. I am neither a student nor degree holder of philosophy.“

I will be writing something up hopefully in the next few days. I ask that you wait patiently for it.

“Why should we care about God’s [wishes / purposes / creative intentions / or whatever you might call his will]? Unless you have an answer for that, all of this other stuff is just peripheral distraction.”

The shortest possible response, because we owe it to Him, and because there are consequences for rebellion.

In response to the incoming might makes right argument.
From 10 seconds of googling I found…

Is Christian morality based on might makes right?

“This is an objection often raised by atheists. Many think that Christianity teaches that God arbitrarily assigns rules for moral behavior, and that his ability to enforce those rules is the basis of right and wrong. But this is not the Christian position. God certainly has the ability to enforce the rules he reveals to us, but what is morally right with God is due to his character, not his power. The reason it is wrong to lie is because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Therefore, right and wrong are not determined by God’s ability to be stronger than anyone else. Right and wrong are determined by God revealing his own immutable, holy essence.

Whenever an atheist accuses Christian theology, and in particular the Christian God, of determining morality from “might makes right,” he is misrepresenting the Christian faith. But, this is often the case with atheists who fail to seriously study what they criticize.”

I’d expect your response to my very reasonable request here, not on your unnamed blog. Given the volume you’ve written here, I think you are up to it. I won’t accept your answer on a TB’ers blog, because I won’t respond there.

Oh nice, he even realized that he just clearly stated that it is might makes right, so he hedged it with a nonsensical apologist statement from google.

But it is all utter bull$hit. Because at the end of the day, “cuz god sez so” is the only justification and the response to “well, what do I care if god sez so?” is “there are consequences for rebellion.”

I cannot understand how blind you can be to the fact that this is such an incredibly obvious and egregious double standard. You literally use the exact same statements as critiques of our position, but then declare that yours is magically different because it refers to your sky fairy rather than human beings. Yet you haven’t established first that the sky fairy exists. If you establish that, then we can talk about whether these double standard semantic games are reasonable.

Sorry Zach. You’ve lost the entire game in those two posts.

(well, the game had been lost in the same way ages ago, but now it is patently clear since you finally said it succinctly and unambiguously)

ConspicuousCarl wrote,
“Why should we care about God’s [wishes / purposes / creative intentions / or whatever you might call his will]? Unless you have an answer for that, all of this other stuff is just peripheral distraction.”

You responded,
“The shortest possible response, because we owe it to Him, and because there are consequences for rebellion.”

Really, man?

Never mind about my request regarding your argument for objective morality. You have nothing to say that I care about. You had me interested, but despite your protests that God wasn’t in the mix, turns out God was in the mix. You held on pretty well, but just couldn’t hold your load.

Of course God was always in the mix JJ! The entire rhetorical tactic he has used this whole time is the age old theist apologist one of trying to prove in bits whatever the can so they can spring god on your at the end. Because he knows the idea of a sky fairy is ridiculous and nobody would take it seriously so he has to find other ways to trick people into thinking there is a god. Like hiding division by zero in a complicated math problem and asking someone to prove it wrong.

But hey, he did quote Einstein about needing to be able to explain it to a 6 year old… well, perhaps this 7 year old can explain to him why a sky fairy is a ridiculous thought.

“A great book on the topic that got me started on it all a few years back: Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.”

I have heard of that book, but I haven’t read it. The truth is, relative to many commenters on this blog and elsewhere, I rarely read books. I have excuses with regards to working and kids, etc, but the truth is I don’t make the time. If I consume information these days it is online or audio – some books, but mostly podcasts. I was able to find the PDF online with a google search… apparently it is a free book now? I have a 13 hour plane trip in 2 months, maybe i’ll be able to read a book or two then.

Understandable. I have little time to read books as well these days. Plus, as you’ve said, often the education garnered here and at SBM is hard to beat.

However, the book by Colvin is short and a quick read with a few good examples. Essentially it dispels the myth that anybody was ever good because of “genius” or “talent” and that all the common examples people think of (Mozart, Tiger Woods, Warren Buffet, Wayne Gretzky, etc) actually are just products of constant failure and ceaseless determination. He uses some scientific studies to further support these claims. He also delves into how to best achieve “greatness” considering that some people do the same thing for decades and plateau whilst others continue to improve and rise in “greatness” (the catch-all term he uses for being really good in your field, whatever it is and whatever that means).

“Was your question not in regards to the Christian’s understanding of law giver?
I am confused.
I said from the start I am a Christian, I assumed your question was asking about that.”

My request was,
“So, you claim morality is objective. Do I have it right?
Your logical proof of this is that morality cannot be not-objective. Do I have it right?
Your definition of “objective” includes the characteristic of being absolute. Do I have that right?
Please show me your work in a way (remedial) I can understand. I’m a blue-collar guy, but I do okay with moderately complicated ideas. I am neither a student nor degree holder of philosophy.”

I am clearly inquiring about your exact argument against Dr. Novella. How do you confuse that? Zach, this is a superb example of your state of confusion. You’re not comprehending was is being plainly written to you.

Don’t worry, I was never a candidate for un-deconversion. I just wanted to try to understand your initial argument, which was not predicated on the existence of the Abrahamic god. I have no use for that guy.

OST, maybe I’ll look at your argument, but I won’t tolerate wordplay or logical tricks or diversion, all of which I consider you guilty.

“I am clearly inquiring about your exact argument against Dr. Novella. How do you confuse that? Zach, this is a superb example of your state of confusion. You’re not comprehending was is being plainly written to you.
Don’t worry, I was never a candidate for un-deconversion. I just wanted to try to understand your initial argument, which was not predicated on the existence of the Abrahamic god. I have no use for that guy.”

I understand that, but someone else asked me a specific question about the theology of Christianity, if you confused that as what I am trying to prove, then don’t.

I don’t think you can prove empirically that their is a God. I never said you could. I was merely responding to a question about the nature of God – from the Christian perspective of theology. They are different questions.

I feel like the discussion of Harris’ book and Dr. Novella’s position is a more interesting and productive focus than replying to Zach’s trolling.

Maybe I got the wrong message from Harris, but I don’t see the alternative to his view. We either evaluate consequences based on objective standards to the best of our ability and use that to make value judgments, or we assign values at random. Science has a role to play in the first of these options (if this is a false dichotomy please call me on it). We can account for subjective experience in a rational way. I’m not sure what other choice we have, and how that differs from Dr. Novella’s points (again maybe I misunderstood Harris’ point). We can’t prove gravity, yet we don’t allow that to stop us from making predictions and applying the results. To say morality has a subjective component doesn’t mean we can’t make statements about better and worse ways of living together.

Someone earlier made a comment about consequentialism. I’m genuinely curious. What other basis for decision making is open to us. To say that X has no consequences is to say that it simply doesn’t matter to any living entity. What other starting point makes sense in any sphere? Once we acknowledge that consequences do matter, we can begin to actually evaluate the results of actions between living beings. We can account for the differences in experience and biology that separates them and work out a system that maximizes their potential. Mutually exclusive goals can be evaluated on a consequential basis. Again, if an action has no consequences, who cares anyway?

Please re-read my original request without any assumptions and get back to me. No brain-farts, no mixing up my request with something else. Concentrate only on that post…I understand that is a challenge for you, but if you want me to understand your objective morality argument, you’ll have to force yourself to focus on that very specific request. Do not multi-task whilst re-reading my post. Turn off everything else and respond only to my post. Thank-you.

Zach, I’m interested in your argument, if there is one. The god stuff, though, is a non-starter after that, just so you know.

Zach, guess I struck a nerve and got too close to the truth which you don’t want to perceive.

Objective means observer and reference frame independent. It derives from the definition of what the term means.

If you read the paper, it is about truth based on information. If everyone shares the same priors (the same information), they can’t disagree on what conclusions that information leads to, unless they are being dishonest.

You are the one saying that morality must be objective, but then you want different observers to not draw the same moral conclusions from the same facts.

You don’t want morality to be “objective”, you want morality to depend on the subjective whims of your “Law Giver”, which you have decided makes them “objective” because the Law Giver says so.

Lions are not sentient moral actors. Lions don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Lions don’t have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and to be moral actors. Lions have the same capacity for knowing right and wrong that YECs think Adam and Eve had before they ate the fruit. The goal of YEC teachings is to get humans back to that pre-fruit state.

I am a dictator. I draw up a set of rules for my subjects to follow. I can pick or choose if and when to follow these rules myself because I am a dictator and I can do what I like and I won’t get punished. But if my subjects disobey these rules they will be punished. That is might makes right. Right?

God also has a set of rules for us to follow. However it is not possible for God to disobey these rules because they emanate from the nature of God. But, similarly to the dictator scenario, if we, his subjects, disobey these rules, we will be punished.

The only difference I can see is that, unlike the dictator, God cannot disobey God’s rules because they emanate from the nature of God.
But how does this cancel out might makes right?

Suppose the dictator did obey all his rules, not because he doesn’t want to be punished (because he is the dictator and he cannot be punished), but because it is in his nature to live by those rules (which is why they are the rules that all his subjects must follow in the first place). Is it still “might is right” when he punishes his subjects for disobeying his rules, or does this no longer apply?

Certainly we would have more respect for such a dictator. But he is still demanding that we be exactly like him and do exactly what he does for fear of being punished. And he is in a position where he can meter out this punishment, no questions asked. It’s still “might makes right”. Surely?

BJ – his non-response will be that the dictator didn’t “create” you and thus it is might make right, whereas since god did “create” you it is not might but authority. Somehow that word game makes it completely different.

Of course, how that squares with his admission that you cannot empirically prove god is beyond comprehension. He pesters us for “evidence please, not blind faith” and clamors that “logic and reason can’t prove an objective moral principle” and then states quite clearly that only faith can “prove” god and that you can arrive at that conclusion by “logic and reason.”

It’s patently ridiculous and why theology is simply utterly bankrupt.

He also states he wants an “objective” morality, but then conflates that with “absolute” as well.

As I said some many comments ago, his neural cytoarchitecture renders him incapable of even realizing how incredibly incongruous all his statements and claims are.

“Zach, I’m interested in your argument, if there is one. The god stuff, though, is a non-starter after that, just so you know.”

Any specific reason you rule that out as an option from the start?

Seems a bit narrow to me to not even allow it in the conversation. Does that demonstrate that your mind is already made up?

My argument is that that morality must be objective – which I will fully explain and write out. Remember, once you arrive at objective there are different possible routes to take. Same way as if you arrive at the notion that morality is subjective – see my chart.

“Lions are not sentient moral actors. Lions don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Lions don’t have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and to be moral actors.”

Lions are sentient…

Secondly, how do you know we know what is right and wrong since what is “wrong” happens all the time. Maybe we all just do what we are programmed to do, and there is a range on it. Not sure why don’t you consider that option. I don’t agree with it, but you don’t seem to be picking between the two with anything other than your preference of blue over red.

BillyJoe7
good questions/critiques, keep them coming!

“I am a dictator. I draw up a set of rules for my subjects to follow. I can pick or choose if and when to follow these rules myself because I am a dictator and I can do what I like and I won’t get punished. But if my subjects disobey these rules they will be punished. That is might makes right. Right?”

Yes. I agree. Good analogy.

“God also has a set of rules for us to follow. However it is not possible for God to disobey these rules because they emanate from the nature of God. But, similarly to the dictator scenario, if we, his subjects, disobey these rules, we will be punished.
The only difference I can see is that, unlike the dictator, God cannot disobey God’s rules because they emanate from the nature of God.”

This is an excellent question. I have been thinking it over and here is what I have come up with so far.

Might makes right would be that the authority is derived from God’s power right. His ability to stop or punish us for not following the rules.

Might makes right in a human sense would be that something is right, simply because the majority, or those with the biggest guns, have the ability to enforce whatever they feel like enforcing.

(I’m going to explain a Christian belief here, so don’t get all upset and take this as I am trying to prove God to you right now. I’m not, I’m just explaining why Christians reject Euthyphro’s Dilemma.)

So when it comes to Plato’s question, Euthyphro’s Dilemm, a Christian would argue that both options are not what the Bible explains God is like.

a. Is telling lies wrong because God decided He doesn’t like it, so if you don’t obey God will use his power to enforce what he happens to like or dislike?

b. Is telling lies wrong because God has access to some moral law outside of himself that he looks up what actions are right and wrong? So then this God wouldn’t be the supreme author of right and wrong, this standard outside of himself would be.

The Christian rejects a and be and suggest option c.

c. Before time itself was created and matter, the universe, etc. God is and was the supreme being who exists by himself, in himself, and for himself. He is all there was and ever was (Skeptics who rage at this stuff try to calm down now, I’m explaining the 3rd option that Christians believe, so you might not agree, but there is no dilemma).

This God does not change and remains the same, he does not learn, he does not grow, he does not age, etc. etc. So his/she/its personality would not be like our personality – one that changes with experience.
Now, if this being’s character cannot and does not change, certain actions outside of himself (lying, rape, etc. etc.) would be against his character, it would be a rebellion against what He is.

Now, if morality is rooted God’s character and not His power to enforce whatever he decides to like on that given day, month, year, millennium, etc. and this God is a just God who hates rebellion (sin – wrong moral actions). Then this God would strike down such actions.

This also is one of the reasons why Christians believe in forgiveness. We are not the judge of right and wrong. We forgive because we have been forgiven. Big conversation required, but it helps to mention this idea in perspective.

So the tldr version. I would assert might makes right is rooted in the power to put into place whatever moral system you decide you like. The Christian God doesn’t do this, he didn’t choose that rape would be bad and love would be good, he had no other choice since it was rooted in his character, not his power to arbitrary say I like blue over red.

I just realized this would be like explaining molecular genetics to someone in Darwin’s time. The fundamental concepts are so far removed from their reality they couldn’t begin to start to understand it.

Zach: I find your attempt to escape the Euthyphro dilemma ["option (c)"] to be incoherent.

Talk of a personality that does not change with experience sounds like no personality at all. You might as well be describing the “personality” of a dead person.

What I think you’re trying to say (correct me if I’m wrong) is that we should follow God’s commandments because His character is inherently virtuous. If so, then – putting aside the problems of biblical “evidence” to the contrary (e.g. see my previous comment re: God’s permission to rape in the Bible) and theodicy in general – you’ve basically chosen the second horn of the dilemma.

I wrote,
“Zach, I’m interested in your argument, if there is one. The god stuff, though, is a non-starter after that, just so you know.”

You wrote,
“Any specific reason you rule that out as an option from the start?
Seems a bit narrow to me to not even allow it in the conversation. Does that demonstrate that your mind is already made up?”

I all but rule it out from the start. You are making an incorrect assumption. There has been a lot of (as in years and volumes) other stuff leading me to my conclusions. You are a very late development.

IMO, there is no evidence for the Abrahamic god. None. No frozen waterfalls. No archaeology. No Bible. No miracles, no answered prayers, no magical sunsets, no wildly incoherent explanations. No logic, nothing.

The way you argue, I’m later middle age, I will die before you get to a cogent argument for your god.

For now, just present, in clear terms, your argument for objective morality as I have explained I understand it. Or correct me. Let’s not get derailed by a separate issue.

IF you toss out another diversion, I withdraw my request for your argument. ’nuff said. Focus, Zach.

Yeah, I asked that question in relation to Euthyphro’s dilemma and Zach’s link to the Christian apologist’s third option to resolve this dilemma.

Zach,

“This God does not change and remains the same, he does not learn, he does not grow, he does not age, etc. etc. So his/she/its personality would not be like our personality – one that changes with experience.”

I assume Christians would also say that God’s personality is perfect, moral, and right?
I think we need that for the rest of the argument to make any sense.

“Now, if this being’s character cannot and does not change, certain actions outside of himself (lying, rape, etc. etc.) would be against his character, it would be a rebellion against what He is.”

Is it a rebellion against God/God’s character though? First of all we would need to have perfect knowledge of God’s character. Secondly, even if we did have perfect knowledge of God’s character and what he would do and not do, we might just choose to do things differently. We might not see it as a rebellion against God at all. We might aee it as doing things that seem right and proper from our (?limited) point of view.

“Now, if morality is rooted God’s character and not His power to enforce whatever he decides to like on that given day, month, year, millennium, etc. and this God is a just God who hates rebellion (sin – wrong moral actions). Then this God would strike down such actions.”

So, what would you say in relation to my second dictator scenario.
(ie you have not responded to my last two paragraphs)

“God also has a set of rules for us to follow. However it is not possible for God to disobey these rules because they emanate from the nature of God.”

So if the rules have changed at any time, is this reflective of a change in the god?

“Now, if morality is rooted God’s character and not His power to enforce whatever he decides to like on that given day, month, year, millennium, etc. and this God is a just God who hates rebellion (sin – wrong moral actions). Then this God would strike down such actions”

I’ve always found the emotions attributed to gods (jealousy, anger) to be fairly petty for a such a being. Often those emotions seem petty even for a child, yet people find this convincing for an ominscient omnipotent supernatural being?

“Christian God doesn’t do this, he didn’t choose that rape would be bad and love would be good, he had no other choice since it was rooted in his character, not his power to arbitrary say I like blue over red. ”

So god had “no other choice” in the matter… his will is subordinate to his nature?

If you consider me responding to other questions directed at me a diversion, you might as well as withdraw it now.

Your mind is made up.

Mufi,
You said,

“I find your attempt to escape the Euthyphro dilemma ["option (c)"] to be incoherent.
Talk of a personality that does not change with experience sounds like no personality at all. You might as well be describing the “personality” of a dead person.”

Mufi, correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears we are disagreeing over the notion of an unchanging personality?

I like definitions, and I think they help, so here we go.

Personality:
1. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He is a curious personality.

2. Psychology .
a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.

3. the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.

4. the essential character of a person.

Now, I think you are assuming that a personality that doesn’t change isn’t real. I don’t think that necessarily follows, and you can’t pull that out of what a personality actually is.

“What I think you’re trying to say (correct me if I’m wrong) is that we should follow God’s commandments because His character is inherently virtuous. If so, then – putting aside the problems of biblical “evidence” to the contrary (e.g. see my previous comment re: God’s permission to rape in the Bible) and theodicy in general – you’ve basically chosen the second horn of the dilemma.

I don’t agree, here is why.

If God was pulling the morality from some object, or standard outside of Himself (Think something that he was given or goes to in order to know it), then you would be correct.

However, God (at least the Christian God) doesn’t do that. What is right is what he does since it’s in his character. If God had chosen to not create anything, and there was only the triune God then there would be nothing else to appeal to, for what would be right with the community of a triune God would be what was right, there is no standard to go appeal to.

Now, your “might makes right” idea doesn’t explain it fully either, since God isn’t simply choosing what He happens to favor. If morality was only based on what He happened to like (red instead of blue), then morality would be subjective to whatever He liked, thus a might makes right scenario.

Rather, God (the Christian God) derives reality from his character, there is no other options for morality if this is true, it is as objective and complete as the existence of Himself.

Whatcha think?

Billyjoe7

“I assume Christians would also say that God’s personality is perfect, moral, and right?
I think we need that for the rest of the argument to make any sense.”

Exactly!

Without that, it’s game over.

“Is it a rebellion against God/God’s character though? First of all we would need to have perfect knowledge of God’s character. Secondly, even if we did have perfect knowledge of God’s character and what he would do and not do, we might just choose to do things differently. We might not see it as a rebellion against God at all. We might see it as doing things that seem right and proper from our (limited) point of view.”

Excellent point.

Here is how I believe we make sense of this.

First, if Christianity is correct, we all do have a sense of right and wrong, but not a full sense entirely – hence the different disagreements. C.S. Lewis’ explanation of this was very helpful for me. Though we do not nor ever will have a universal agreement on morality, human morality generally is not made up of different moralities. What I mean is that you will never find a culture that decided that it was moral to slight everyone who you ever cared about and loved or who helped you, rather the way humanity justifies its abuse of morality is by just that, justifying it.

“All sorts of excuses for us. that time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money – the one you have almost forgotten – came when you wre very hard-up. And what you promised to do for old so-and so and have never done – well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it – and who the dickens am I want anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm.”

So, we all know we fail to do what is morally right always, we excuse it to being human, etc.

But I don’t think it is a stretch to say that if there was a God, and this morality we all seem to not be able to shirk and find ourselves justifying, that we know we are guilty for it to Him. Sort of like the child who knows when mother finds the messy room still messy.

If you don’t understand why what you just wrote doesn’t answer my question, I’m not sure what else to tell you. You are convinced that empathy is > hatred – and yet humans have both traits and must decipher which way to choose. You favor empathy without giving a foundation for it, other than you think so/like it. I am not interesting in what you think since it is only based on what you happen to like. Why should I favor what you like over Bob the human butcher’s?

You asked what differentiates humans from lions. I told you.

A society made of up Bob the human butchers doesn’t have as much reproductive success.

Stop avoiding the word “evolution” like it doesn’t exist, Zach. Because “everybody hates everybody” is not an evolutionarily successful social model for humans. Humans are a successful species in part because they cooperate. We are here because of successful evolution. Sure, successful competition is also important, but only to a point.

If you want some foundation why this is more successful than “everybody hates everybody”, I suggest you google “reciprocal altruism, ‘tit for tat’, or Robert Axelrod”.

“First, if Christianity is correct, we all do have a sense of right and wrong…What I mean is that you will never find a culture that decided that it was moral to slight everyone who you ever cared about and loved or who helped you, rather the way humanity justifies its abuse of morality is by just that, justifying it.”

Non-theists would argue that evolution is a sufficient explanation for why there are no cultures where they slight everyone they ever cared about. Kin Selection and Reciprocal Altruism are evolutionary explanations for why we care for those who care for us, and they are rooted in the concept of “the selfish gene”. I assume you have read Richard Dawkins book.

As for the CS Lewis quote, fair enough we can fail to live up to what we consider to be moral actions, but what about deciding what is moral in the first place? For example, in relation to abortion? If we do not have perfect knowledge about God’s character and what he would do or not do, how could we be rebelling against God whatever we decide is right regarding abortion. We are just making decisions with our limited knowledge, not rebelling against God. Why should that be punished?

“I’m not sure which part I left out, mind telling me? Thanks!”

The bit where I converted the dictator into a god-like person….

“Suppose the dictator did obey all his rules, not because he doesn’t want to be punished (because he is the dictator and he cannot be punished), but because it is in his nature to live by those rules (which is why they are the rules that all his subjects must follow in the first place). Is it still “might is right” when he punishes his subjects for disobeying his rules, or does this no longer apply?
Certainly we would have more respect for such a dictator. But he is still demanding that we be exactly like him and do exactly what he does for fear of being punished. And he is in a position where he can meter out this punishment, no questions asked. It’s still “might makes right”. Surely?”

In the case of the god-like dictator, we at least know what the rules are, but it still sounds like “might makes right”

My hypothesis is that when people meet they do a Turing Test with the person they are trying to communicate with. To do that, you need to be able to emulate the communication protocols they use to translate sounds (i.e. language) into mental concepts. If you can’t understand someone from their perspective, that means you can’t translate the language they are trying to communicate with into the mental concepts they are having. If the error rate is too high, then the Turing Test fails and xenophobia is triggered via the uncanny valley.

People can also be taught to hate, but that is another topic.

To not hate someone you need to be able to understand them. If you can’t understand them, then you default to hating them. This is why theists hate atheists, but atheists don’t hate theists. For the most part theists can’t understand how someone could be an atheist. If a theist could understand how someone could be an atheist, they would most likely be one too. On the other hand, atheists do understand how theists believe in God.

Theists don’t understand why atheists don’t believe in God because they are never able to articulate the reasons. Even after the reasons are explained to them, they still can’t articulate them. You will not be able to articulate why atheists do not believe in God. Your attempts to do so will fail, unless you copy and paste something from an actual atheist. Don’t believe me? Just try it.

Zach: Now, I think you are assuming that a personality that doesn’t change isn’t real. I don’t think that necessarily follows, and you can’t pull that out of what a personality actually is.

I trust that the concept of personality is derived from our experience of those whom call “persons” (e.g. our fellow men & women). With that prototype in mind, I would agree that we can extend it to other entities – e.g. members of other species, machines, and mythical/fictional characters – including Yahweh (or Elohim, depending upon the verse or passage). And anyone who’s read the Bible knows that Yahweh goes through changes, just like any other person (e.g. consider the Flood stories).

So I’ll say it again: All persons – so long as they’re alive – change. The dictionary doesn’t have to state this explicitly. It’s common sense.

What is right is what he does since it’s in his character.

It seems you’re trying to define rightness as whatever God commands, since He can do no wrong, in which case it’s like I said: You’ve not avoided the dilemma. You’ve simply chosen the second horn.

“If we do not have perfect knowledge about God’s character and what he would do or not do, how could we be rebelling against God whatever we decide is right regarding abortion. We are just making decisions with our limited knowledge, not rebelling against God. Why should that be punished?”

Good question.

Christianity asserts that God reveals Himself in two ways.

First, general revelation.
Second, special revelation.

Second is like if God tells a prophet or something like that what He says, and then uses miracles to confirm the message to be from Him.

First type, is what information God would have instilled within us – like instincts etc. The bible teaches also that nature shouts out the glory of God, and Romans 1 talks about why and how man suppresses this knowledge – basically man knows the general revelation and they suppress it willingly whether they would admit it or not.

Second type, prophets, Jesus, etc. Miracles are the sign that they aren’t just people making up stuff.

Now, all that to say, to start God judges mankind for breaking the first type. All mankind is guilty for it, etc. etc. So while you may not know, realize you are breaking laws and stuff that God revealed through special revelation, you and I both know we break the basic ones, or at least have.

Here is a good test to take for yourself. Write out a list of the things you believe are wrong to do. Then go through and examine if you have broken any of those ever. Like be mean to someone and treat them poorly, or w/e your morals are. By even our own standards we are guilty. And since God is just, he therefore will judge rightly. Guilt is punishable even by our own courts and thinking.

Does that help? Some may not want to hear all this, but to answer your question about what Christianity teaches, it requires some theological explanations.

“And anyone who’s read the Bible knows that Yahweh goes through changes, just like any other person (e.g. consider the Flood stories).
So I’ll say it again: All persons – so long as they’re alive – change. The dictionary doesn’t have to state this explicitly. It’s common sense.
”

I agree, all persons alive go through changes that change their character and personality. And your right, the dictionary doesn’t say one way or the other, but that’s my point, it doesn’t necessarily follow that an infinite God that is different than us finite beings must have a changing and progressing personality.

Also, I don’t see God’s character changing, I see his character as being wide and vast – big conversation.

“It seems you’re trying to define rightness as whatever God commands, since He can do no wrong, in which case it’s like I said: You’ve not avoided the dilemma. You’ve simply chosen the second horn.”

No I don’t think so. As I said, rightness is what God is and does, you can’t separate the two. God only does what is consistent within his nature, and what he is is righteous.

I’m trying to think of a better way to explain it, it makes sense in my head, but that’s the best I can come up with for now. Basically I see that as being very different that God commanding whatever he feels like. And if his personality changed, then yeah I would have to agree with you since morality would then be whatever God felt like that day, week, month, year. We’d always be a few steps behind with the new system – and then God would just use his power to enforce the changes.

“Why should we care about God’s [wishes / purposes / creative intentions / or whatever you might call his will]? Unless you have an answer for that, all of this other stuff is just peripheral distraction.”

The shortest possible response, because we owe it to Him, and because there are consequences for rebellion.

Yeah, that’s what I thought. There are really only two answers, and you gave both:

1. Because you have decided that God should benefit from some human-derived sense of moral fairness, in your case being repaid some kind of debt. Others just cite the need for God’s happiness in general, but it’s all just arbitrary assertion that God is to be well-off, which is no more objective than saying that humans should be well-off.

2. Because this supposedly objective obedience to a rule-giver is really just a mechanism for human well-being (avoiding “consequences”, and getting into paradise). It’s not a different philosophy of morality, it’s just a different claimed mechanism for achieving human health.

So you don’t actually have a different approach to morality or a different goal for a moral system. You are the same as anyone, but you are adding belief in supernatural mechanisms and asserting that “god” should be given consideration as a conscious being with the same kinds of moral rules we developed for ourselves (applied in whatever proportional degree you perceive to be his due consideration). All of these scores of comments involving arguments over definitions are just masks layered over the same thing. You don’t have a different sense of morality, you just believe in improbable things.

This is also why Sam Harris is, functionally, correct. Yes, he is arbitrarily declaring that human well-being is the purpose of morality. But every other moral position, including yours, traces back to that. It’s arbitrary, and yet nobody actually disagrees. People claim to disagree, but when you reach the base of their logic, they don’t.

“Granted, so that when God commands us to do X, that too is rightness.
Classic second horn.”

No. You are refusing to recognize the difference between morality coming from a ever changing God who decides morality whenever and however he chooses with a God who’s morality comes from within His unchanging character and nature.

The first involves some might makes right.
The second involves right makes right.

I still maintain that I cannot rebel against God because I do not have knowledge of God’s nature and, therefore, what he would or would not do. He has not seen fit to reveal any messages to me or to confirm them with miracles. So no special revelation. As for general revelation – what you call instincts – are the result of our evolutionary history. That is what the evidence tells me at least. And instincts are not reliable. They arose at a time when humans lived in the forest and had to avoid predators while looking for prey so that they would survive and replicate. For example, the sexual instinct is not reliable. It can lead to rape, or it can lead sex with persons who want to reciprocate purely for the pleasure of sex, or it can help improve loving relationships. What would God do? I have no idea, and my sexual instinct doesn’t tell me that either.

So, no, I can’t break God’s laws, because I have no idea what they are. No revelations. No miracles. Instincts which don’t tell me what is morally right and wrong and which evidence tells me evolved when humans led quite different lives in quite different circumstances from the one I lead, and therefore are ambiguous as to what is right and wrong in my circumstances now.

You rebel against your own moral standard all the time and break it. If God’s standard is even as simple as your own you are guilty by that even measurement – which would be likely be not as strict His if He is perfect.

If there is a God and He did create humanity, even the basic elements of our morality which are correct are from Him – so breaking even one of them imparts guilt. If we conclude that any part of our moral system is right – and we break that, we are guilty by that standard which is a small fraction of the the real one. So not being aware of all of them doesn’t change much if you think we can even know any of them.

“A society made of up Bob the human butchers doesn’t have as much reproductive success.”
I didn’t say kill everyone, I said abuse mistreat everyone outside of my tribe/family.
You aren’t demonstrating your point to be true.

*sigh* For someone so educated, you’re really good at playing dumb. I know it’s deliberate. I know you’re just trying to stir up a fight and not have an actual debate. I know you already know you have no argument against a naturalistic explanation for human morality because naturalistic explanations of how things work in this world have never EVER lost to supernatural explanations.

But I’ll walk through it in nice simple terms.

Kill all other tribes works fine, so long as the other tribes are always weaker than you are. But if they’re NOT weaker than you, then both tribes benefit more by not wasting resources battling each other. Both enjoy more children growing to reproductive age if the tribes don’t fight, and even MORE grow to reproductive age if they cooperate (assuming a non-zero-sum environment).

(Note: In a zero-sum environment, a few key moral rules can be quite different, which just reinforces the argument that morality is relative).

So lets say the other tribe IS weaker than you are and you can wipe them out. That has happened – good bye American Indians, goodbye Neanderthals.

But what happens when you keep them around as slaves? Familiarity develops, communication improves, perhaps there’s a little inter-breeding (perhaps a LOT), and pretty soon they start looking like part of your tribe. There’s that whole empathy thing going to work again.

Now add continuously improving communications, and everybody starts looking like someone familiar. And we have as supporting evidence the steady decrease in human violence to the point we’re at today, with a larger portion of the human population living without the threat of imminent bodily harm than ever in history.

It’s not all black and white. There are bumps in the road. But the instincts that discourage us from mistreating family and friends and other humans with which we are familiar are encouraging us to treat nearly everybody well.

And of course, philosophers like Jesus and those before and after him have put those evolutionary traits into words, have reinforced the self esteem we feel when we act on the more socially-positive feelings, and have built a political Leviathans or invented religious boogie men (like Satan) to punish us when we act on the more socially-negative feelings.

No cosmic objectivity required. No supernatural lawgiver required. Just evolution, and a really interesting mix of biology and self-interested social evolution.

Back over to you Zach to make your petty little sniping attacks on a couple words or phrases while avoiding the central argument entirely and avoiding presenting an alternative source of morality.

Oh, by the way – if there was an objective morality in the universe, it would be the morality of a psychopath, completely indifferent to human (or any other) life. That’s the only morality that makes sense when you consider that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is instantly lethal to life, and when you consider that natural events that cause a loss of life in this universe never select or avoid beings of any particular moral character.

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
– Richard Dawkins

I’m sure you dislike the implications of that statement, but as you know, its implications don’t affect its truth or falsehood. And of course, I don’t expect you to offer any proof that the statement isn’t true. You’re saving that for YOUR blog.

Suppose I have just been to confessional and had all my sins forgiven. Then I have sex purely for fun with a consenting adult who is actually my wife. That, to me, is not immoral. But I have no idea whether or not the nature of God mandates that sex is only for procreation and that any other form of sex is immoral. If that happens to be the case, will I be punished if I die of a heart attack upon consummation of the act? If it is a mortal sin, will I burn in Hell for eternity for what I consider a harmless and fun activity? Seems pretty unfair to me just for not knowing, and not having any way of knowing, what God would do according to his nature.

“Suppose I have just been to confessional and had all my sins forgiven. Then I have sex purely for fun with a consenting adult who is actually my wife. That, to me, is not immoral. But I have no idea whether or not the nature of God mandates that sex is only for procreation and that any other form of sex is immoral. If that happens to be the case, will I be punished if I die of a heart attack upon consummation of the act? If it is a mortal sin, will I burn in Hell for eternity for what I consider a harmless and fun activity? Seems pretty unfair to me just for not knowing, and not having any way of knowing, what God would do according to his nature.

I have never done confession nor am I a Roman catholic.

Really really big conversation, but I don’t have much good to say about the Roman catholic church.

Feel free to ignore the Sam Harris reference and re-read the rest of what I said. Your attempt to discus naturalism vs supernaturalism has nothing to do with the inherent flaw in your supposedly different position.

You missed the point of my last scenario. I don’t care if you not a Roman Catholic. It was just a scenario to bring out the fact that you cannot rebel against God, any God, if you don’t know what he demands of you. And I’ve shown you how revelation, miracles, and instinct don’t work to tell me this.

And you also avoided the scenario about the god-like dictator, which was my attempt to clarify “might is right” in relation to God.

You said because 1) we owe him a debt, and 2) bad things will happen to us if we don’t obey him.

I pointed out that the first item is an appeal to a moral value with god as a beneficiary of that rule. You can’t use god’s word as a reason why we should obey god’s word, so you then need some external reason why we should care about god’s satisfaction with our supposed debt.

I also pointed out that the second item is just using human health as a goal for following the rules, and your basis for morality is therefore the exact same arbitrary basis used for secular/humanist/subjective/whatever morality which you are trying to present as being different from your method.

This is an extremely simple point. If you still honestly don’t understand, don’t keep saying so here as a response. Go ask someone you know to read my post and help you to understand.

First, yes we have a choice to obey or not, if we don’t their an aspect of consequentialism which every view of morality accepts.

Second, Christianity at least, says we have nothing to offer God, so He doesn’t “get” anything out of us obeying. He doesn’t need us per say.

Third,

“You can’t use god’s word as a reason why we should obey god’s word, so you then need some external reason why we should care about god’s satisfaction with our supposed debt.”

I don’t think this statement is true.
a. what do you mean by God’s word (a specific Holy book or?)
b. It assumes that man can have true happiness outside of his purpose that God created him for – the whole Blaise Pascal God shaped hole idea.

Two thing C. S. Lewis once wrote are helpful explanations of this idea.

“God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just not good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

“The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.”

Well the aspect of judgment from a righteous God is blatantly obvious, this is one aspect only of what hell is. The Dante’s Inferno type ideas probably miss much of the point.

C. S. Lewis once wrote,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Zach wrote: “I don’t think this statement is true.
a. what do you mean by God’s word (a specific Holy book or?)
b. It assumes that man can have true happiness outside of his purpose that God created him for – the whole Blaise Pascal God shaped hole idea.”

This is a complete non sequitur, like just about all of your responses. You rarely address the actual point being made, just find some irrelevant other point to focus on.

The crux of your position is that we should follow God’s word because God wants us to and we know we should follow God’s word because God says so. These are both, of course, circular reasoning.

What the source of God’s word is is irrelevant to that point. It is a separate point, and also another fatal problem for your position, but it certainly does not resolve the circular problem of your logic.

The second point, b, is simply false. It assumes nothing, it is simply an accurate portrayal of your logic. You are just saying here that, “in saying that I have no basis for my position you are assuming that I am not right.” This is a clever way to try to shift the burden of proof. You have to give a compelling argument for why you are right – why do we need God to find true happiness (and please define “true happiness”).

CS Lewis was just another courtier to the Emperor With No Clothes. This is just more tortured rationalization attempting to explain how a benevolent, perfect, all-knowing being could create a system of life built on competition and death, where “God’s creatures” can only thrive by killing and eating “God’s creatures”, where there is a vast universe that is almost totally hostile to life, and where suffering is such an enormous component of the lives of “His Chosen”.

Arguing over the internal logical consistency of any system involving an undetectable omnipotent being is futile. There’s always the “Get Out of Jail Free Card” of God’s magic.

Yes, “Gods” and “Heavens” and “Hells” provide lovely narratives to encourage or discourage certain social behavior. But again, these narratives change so much from person to person and from faith to faith that no rational mind can see them as anything but the reflections of the people devising them. There is no hint of consistent divine direction. The common threads across human behaviors and human societies are MUCH more reasonably explained by natural causes (especially as we discover more of those traits in non-human societies) than through various invocations of divine magic.

Perhaps some day someone will come up with a way of distinguishing between a “God” that actually exists and a “God” that is simply an emergent meme of human society. Zach has certainly made no progress toward that end. Until someone does, we can safely assume it is us fallible, self-interested humans that must decide how we want to use our strange and wonderful chance at this apparently rare thing called conscious life.

No. You are refusing to recognize the difference between morality coming from a ever changing God who decides morality whenever and however he chooses with a God who’s morality comes from within His unchanging character and nature.
The first involves some might makes right. The second involves right makes right.

OK, let’s back up.
Recall that the dilemma is: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?
Your answer boils down to: It is good because it “comes from within His unchanging character and nature.”
As I see it, you’ve arbitrarily settled on a criterion of goodness that can logically apply to other entities besides God. When framed that way, it sounds more like the first horn.

However, I expect that you’ll assert that, in fact, only God meets that criterion, in which case it sounds more like the second horn.

Either way, you can’t escape the dilemma. Plato knew what he was talking about.

“Compare yourself to your own standard of morality – you break that even.
Guilty”

What does this even mean? That we will all be judged by our own actions in light of our own sense of morality? That is in complete contradiction to everything you’ve been saying thus far, and in contradition to nearly all Christian perspectives that I know of.

Perhaps it is a dodge to what I believe is BJ7′s point: How much sense does it make for an omnipotent omniscient being to demand of his “creation,” us humans, to obey his rules without explicitly stating what those rules are. Sure some people will proclaim that they are apparent, but they are obviously not because there are almost as many sets of rules as there are people, and even if we are to assume your god is the correct one- those rules are vague at their best, and often contradictory. So each individual is left to interpret these rules for themselves, like life is some kind of game with eternity on the line. There is no reason why these rules could not be clear, unless the god is not truly omnipotent…perhaps vagueness is his only weakness.

So each individual is left to interpret these rules for themselves, like life is some kind of game with eternity on the line.

Worse,we are not all equipped with the same intellectual abilities. Those who have severe mental deficits cannot reasonably be held responsible for not understanding the ‘rules’,and thus being damned for eternity.Or,maybe god thinks that IS reasonable. Does god make exceptions for his flawed creations?

“Perhaps some day someone will come up with a way of distinguishing between a “God” that actually exists and a “God” that is simply an emergent meme of human society…Until someone does, we can safely assume it is us fallible, self-interested humans that must decide how we want to use our strange and wonderful chance at this apparently rare thing called conscious life.”

I became especially interested in the impact of “guilt” and “shame” about the time I re-evaluated my own Christian beliefs. They certainly have their places in society, but they are two of the most severely abused emotions, especially in Christianity.

So to someone like Zach that tries to make a case that we are all “guilty” somehow, I say, guilty of what? Guilty according to whom? Guilty according to what? I find a great deal of peace in having shed my previous need to acquiesce to such charges.

Well, thankfully for my further time investment this has left the realm of the philosophy of morality and ethics and devolved into theistic apologism. Which is quite inane, has been refuted countless times, and is quite boring to me at this point. Zach is no longer even instructional to me, because I have encountered all of these apologia many times before and, of course, there is nothing new.

Of course it is hardly surprising that this happened. After all that was Zach’s point the entire time and we knew it. But at least it was interesting at first because he feigned a desire to keep it purely to the concept of objective (by which he really meant absolute, since he doesn’t know what “objective” actually means) vs subjective (by which he means absolute relativism, since he doesn’t understand how subjective does not mean “all ideas are equal”) without the whole god thing.

Of course the amazing irony is he spent the whole time saying he doesn’t want faith based assertions as the basis of the conversation but then cannot even begin to have his conversation without the biggest leap of faith of all – that a magic sky fairy exists. “harm is bad” is too great a leap of faith for him, but “the unchanging perfect personality of god emanates morality that permeates the universe” seems perfectly reasonable.

And of course, the best part is he – like all apologists – simply plays the “god is magic so nanny nanny boo boo” card. God does exactly the same thing he derides – “might makes right” – but it magically gets transformed into “authority” rather than “might” and since it is god, it further transmogrifies into “right” without any rational, logical, or evidence based reason as to why. All while having the immense hypocrisy to claim our stance fails because it lacks reason, logic, and evidence. Truly pitiful.

BJ’s points are solid and Zach’s rebuttal is as weak as it comes. Sure, we fail by our own standards. So? The point is that even if I didn’t fail by my own standards I would still fail by standards I cannot possibly know. It becomes a zero-sum game that makes attempting any standards worthless. And it is also the standard Jesus-freak pamphlet cartoon to try and scare people into believing. Only a child would be fooled by it.

Yet another example of how completely bankrupt theology is.

Oh, and D2u makes some good points as well, especially his last one. Yes, despite the fact that I have never ever been a believer I can at least imagine what it is like and see the reasons why people believe. Zach would not be able to do the opposite. As I said long ago – his neural cytoarchitecture prevents that possibility.

I think my learning opportunities have dried up, but I thank everyone who contributed along the way.

Those who have severe mental deficits cannot reasonably be held responsible for not understanding the ‘rules’,and thus being damned for eternity.Or,maybe god thinks that IS reasonable. Does god make exceptions for his flawed creations?

An interesting medical factoid.

Cretinism is the result of congenital hypothyroidism. Thyroid hormone is vitally necessary for early brain and body development. A lack of it leaves those afflicted severely mentally retarded and physically deformed (in relation to the level of hypothyroidism). The term “cretinism” to describe them arose from the French “chretien” which means “Christ-like” since it was their belief that these unfortunate souls were so incapable of commiting any sort of sin that they were guaranteed entry to heaven, thus being the most like Christ himself.

There is an urban myth running around that the term comes from the notion that Christian’s are mentally handicapped themselves, thus the descriptor used in this condition. While funny, it isn’t true.

Just a couple of comments about your response to my post (a long way above )

Yes, Harris assumes consequentialism, and I appreciate he does that by ignoring other ethical systems, but I think that’s my point – what he’s doing is arguing that morality should be defined in the way that most people understand the term, which is a consequentialist view (“He’s a bad person because his actions caused pain and suffering”). Though it’s fairly obvious that taking a consequentialist view to extremes fails in corner cases, and it’s also fairly obvious that our evolved moral sense is some kind of mixture of the three ethical systems so that attempting to shoehorn our moral decisions into any one system is likely to leave us a little uneasy at times.

As for equating all subjective moral views with rolling a die – I don’t at all agree with you that they are not all equally preferable. (Sorry – too many negatives!). After all, what’s to say that a moral system based on “attempting to cause the least pain to other human beings” is *intrinsically* any better than one based on “attempting to maximise the number of healthy years that is lived by human beings” or “minimise the number of criminals” or “minimise the number of elephants” or “make as many things as possibly purple” or “kill everyone with an odd number of letters in their name”? The only reason why you might think that the latter are less plausible as bases for a system of morality than the former is because you have some undisclosed notion that morality is something to do with making people better off. Which is Harris’s point, isn’t it? Hence my argument about circularity and my claim that the concept of morality is inherently meaningless (unless we assume some teleological dimension to it, which philosophers don’t like).

Ooh.. I ought to reply to this, too: “the moral philosophy of those cultures claiming [a] god as their source is indistinguishable from culturally determined moral philosophizing” [SN]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you’re saying, but if you’re saying “Moral arguments from religions are indistinguishable in form from secular morality” then I disagree with that. After all, the important difference with religious moral arguments is not just that they argue a different (though suspiciously similar and socially-dependent) set of moral rules and regulations [plus the obligatory injunctions on what, specifically, you are and are not allowed to do with your genitals]. But religious morality also purports to give an objective basis to that morality, which secular morality lacks (so I believe – you probably disagree). As it happens, I believe religious moral arguments are not objective, but that’s besides the point

If, however, you’re saying “people who claim to get their morality from religion have indistinguishable moral actions from those who get their moral arguments from secular sources” then I largely agree (with perhaps a slight preference towards preferring the moral actions of those who have a secular basis for morality.) Christopher Hitchens used to proudly claim that nobody could give him an example of a moral action that a religious person could commit but he couldn’t, but to my mind at least he never played the flip side of that card – it’s fairly easy to think of an example of a profound moral act that I or any secular person could commit but a religious person almost certainly could not – namely a truly anonymous, altruistic act without even the slightest hope of recognition or reward from any source outside oneself.

Fourier: Hence my argument about circularity and my claim that the concept of morality is inherently meaningless (unless we assume some teleological dimension to it, which philosophers don’t like).

Re: telos, Michael Sandel said in his series on Justice re: Aristotle:

Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos … of the social practice in question.

To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward.

…no scientist reads Aristotle’s works on biology or physics and takes them seriously. But students of ethics and politics continue to read and ponder Aristotle’s moral and political philosophy.

Telos (in the weakened form of teleonomy) also still seems to play some role in evolutionary biology and in the social sciences, but in ethics, I believe that the only philosophers who consciously try to avoid it are deontologists. The rest (e.g. consequentialists and virtue ethicists) seem quite comfortable with the idea that there’s an end or purpose (e.g. well-being, utility, virtue, etc.) to behaving in some ways but not others – i.e. morally.

“Of course it is hardly surprising that this happened. After all that was Zach’s point the entire time and we knew it. But at least it was interesting at first because he feigned a desire to keep it purely to the concept of objective”

It may have been more interesting in that it caused a good discussion on this blog about moral philosophy, but as far as a discussion with Zach I would have preferred the boring truth upfront rather than an the phony mystery we got.

“And of course, the best part is he – like all apologists – simply plays the “god is magic so nanny nanny boo boo” card.”

Its the special pleading/double standard, since he creates an unreasonable standard for alternative viewpoints, but allows very little justification for his own. All of the other logical fallacies and cognitive errors occured to justify this double standard.

Again, I didn’t justify the source of my position, I merely pointed out the nonsensical nature of yours.

It must hit pretty close to home if you are really throwing out this kind of jargon when I have said several times that I have not even come close to demonstrating my position in Christianity – I have only demonstrated that morality must at least be objective since subjective is complete non-sense.

Again, there is a difference.

“Also, Zach, you said that “bad things will happen” – prove that those things you speak of are objectively “bad.”

Read above posts. You are grasping desperately at straws out of clear frustration in the dooming flaws of your own view.

I never said I proved what bad and good were, I answered a theological question within the framework of the Christian world view.

There is a difference.

“Arguing over the internal logical consistency of any system involving an undetectable omnipotent being is futile. There’s always the “Get Out of Jail Free Card” of God’s magic.”

No more futile than you are Steven’s desperate attempts to justify a system in itself with a first principle that is the very question you are seeking to justify – how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE! You say.

Circular nonsense.

“Yes, “Gods” and “Heavens” and “Hells” provide lovely narratives to encourage or discourage certain social behavior. But again, these narratives change so much from person to person and from faith to faith that no rational mind can see them as anything but the reflections of the people devising them.”

Doesn’t matter. If there are 13 billion views of gravity and just one of them is correct, it doesn’t matter about the other false ones. Your point is illogical.

“Perhaps some day someone will come up with a way of distinguishing between a “God” that actually exists and a “God” that is simply an emergent meme of human society. Zach has certainly made no progress toward that end.”

You are clearly confused. I never attempted to.
But if this gives you comfort carry on.

“Recall that the dilemma is: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?
Your answer boils down to: It is good because it “comes from within His unchanging character and nature.”
As I see it, you’ve arbitrarily settled on a criterion of goodness that can logically apply to other entities besides God. When framed that way, it sounds more like the first horn.”

No, you aren’t putting the first part of the dilemma correctly. It’s the notion that God goes to some moral system outside of himself in which to know that rape is always bad. God doesn’t do that, so your point fails.

But regardless Mufi, I’m enjoying your critiques. Steven, JJ Borman, and the others in the crowd are being too easily distracted by it so I suggest we put it on hiatus until I actually write a defense of my position – one in which I am inviting them to critique.

They are too easily confused and think I am provided one, I know you can tell the difference, but for whatever reason they can’t seem to.

So back to Steven’s view (you know, what this article is about…) and him explaining how his view isn’t circular.

“I would strongly suggest you learn more about the history of Christianity or any other major religion. You will find that morality, as it has been defined by the various Churches and sects has changed dramatically over the centuries and Christianity as it is practiced today is nothing like what was practiced in it’s infancy as a religion. With that in mind, it makes it very difficult to argue that religion and belief in God provides any kind of anchor on which to base your system of morality.”

Except you could also reference Catholicism, which hasn’t changed it’s church doctrine in the centuries since it was created. And why pick on Christianity? There must be plenty of religions, even major ones, in which people practice a moral code relatively unchanged since their inception. This argument is not as universally applicable as you think.

@Steve
“NAA wrote: “Atheists could solve their logical dilemma with morality by simply admitting that no authority->no morality. There is no basis for judging even the most heinous acts as wrong without an objective morality. It is interesting that you rarely hear that point made.:

No – that is your premise, but it is not reasonable, and certainly has not been demonstrated. I do not need a magic authority to tell me that if I expect to have my right respected I should respect the rights of others. I can work that out for myself, thanks. ”

False. This is actually a great example, Dr Novella, of a flawed argument that I often have to be cautious of when debating my christian friends. Most everyone here probably grew up in a society whose morals are largely influenced by Judeo-Christian values. That you have come up with your own modified moral code in adulthood does not negate that start. None of us can really say what values we would come up with on our own in a different society. Your subjective morality has been influenced by what our forefathers assumed was an objective morality. Thus we can’t use ourselves as un-biased evidence for subjective morals.

We would be in a bind arguing against objective morals based on the fact that there are religions with relatively unchanged morals over time and that one cannot truly prove that God does not exist. However, there is also no evidence that God DOES exist. This is the stronger, more logical argument, and from that we can assume the the “objective” morals of any religion are simply a subjective moral code of the society in which X religion was started. You may have already stated that part?- but these fine points are important to keep people from being over confident in their arguments that can be biased from their true belief in atheism, even as they point out arguments biased by religious belief.

Nord – Thanks for the thoughtful input. I don’t know how many comments you read, but you are coming in late in the conversation.

I was not saying that you can get to objective morality from reason or gut feelings. I acknowledge the strong influence of culture on what we think is moral.

My position is, that moral philosophy is not 100% objective but neither is it arbitrary and worthless (which is essentially Zach’s position – I believe he reduced moral philosophy to logical fallacies and absurdity).

There are values which are ultimately subjective, although I think they can be rooted in very basic human emotions. They are so fundamental that the premises that lead you to the need for a moral system in the first place are also the starting point for moral philosophy. Further, once you have some fundamental values, moral philosophy can proceed from there with logic, and informed by evidence (so, not arbitrary).

This is very much like science – there are methods, logic, and evidence but you can dig down to some starting premises. All conclusions in science are tentative and imperfect. There is always a frame of reference that we cannot get out of. But some conclusions in science are so strong that it would be perverse not to acknowledge that they are likely true.

Similarly through moral philosophy you cannot get to any objective truth, but you can arrive at conclusions that are so compelling it would be perverse not to acknowledge that they are at least a sound basis for morality.

This is a far more nuanced position than Zach is capable of dealing with, so he keeps arguing in circles, tilting against his straw man.

Steven said: “You rarely address the actual point being made, just find some irrelevant other point to focus on.”

This really summarises your tactics pretty accurately.

This is exactly what you did with my last post:
In my example, you focused on the fact that it was an example of Catholicism which gave you an excuse to not answer the point actually being made. When I pointed this out to you, you continued to avoid answering it. I have to assume you have no answer. But it’s dishonest not to say so if that is the case.

Your purpose in focussing on an irrelevant point is to avoid answering difficult questions.
Sometimes, instead of focussing on an irrelevant point, you simply do not answer a question:
For example, my question about the god-like dictator was simply ignored, and when you pretended not to have seen the question and I posted it again, you simply ignored it a second time. Again that’s pretty dishonest.

How can anyone have a reasonable conversation with you in these circumstances.

“Is anyone really shocked that Zach’s ultimate position was nothing better than “the bible tells me so”?
Though I’m amused by his continued attempts to be dishonest about what he doing here.
.”

C. S. Lewis said it best,

“The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them.”

“One long non sequitur, and another attempt to avoid stating a positive case for his position.
Zach keep misrepresenting our position, ignoring answers we have already given, and just repeats his premises. There is no end in sight.
If at some point Zach has the courage to make a positive case for his position, I will be happy to address it.”

If it is in the fashion that you have “addressed” your current position, then count me un-impressed.
I clearly understand your position, you do not.

“My position is, that moral philosophy is not 100% objective but neither is it arbitrary and worthless (which is essentially Zach’s position – I believe he reduced moral philosophy to logical fallacies and absurdity).”

Steven is grasping at straws now. He keeps claiming that a statement can be partially objective and partially subjective – complete nonsense. I even provided the definition of objective for him in which he responded that it is considered naïve to rely on dictionary definitions when discussing philosophy – in which he of course did not suggest a definition to replace it with – so he can hide behind whatever definitions he has decided to the give a word by not telling us what he says they mean and why.

“There are values which are ultimately subjective, although I think they can be rooted in very basic human emotions. “

Values are subjective. When Steven says that “the way one determines morality” is by values rotted in basic human emotions, he is dodging the issue. He claims that morality is a system in which to reduce harm – but doesn’t tell us why or how he concluded that – why not one that encourages fun, or sex, or violence, fear, or any other basic human emotion?

He also doesn’t tell us why we should care about human emotions. Another faith statement.

“They are so fundamental that the premises that lead you to the need for a moral system in the first place are also the starting point for moral philosophy. Further, once you have some fundamental values, moral philosophy can proceed from there with logic, and informed by evidence (so, not arbitrary).”

Notice how he never reveals how he chose which values are the right ones to like (why blue is the bestest of all colors and red should be avoided).

“This is very much like science – there are methods, logic, and evidence but you can dig down to some starting premises. All conclusions in science are tentative and imperfect. There is always a frame of reference that we cannot get out of. But some conclusions in science are so strong that it would be perverse not to acknowledge that they are likely true.”

Be careful whenever someone tries to say something is so complicated that basic reasoning is too simple for it. It is a mask to hide the flaws. Don’t get me wrong, things can be complicated and most real things are – but explaining them should not require a master’s in philosophy to understand such a basic notion as “how does one determine morality”.

Einstein said if you can’t explain something to a 6 year old you don’t understand it yourself. Steven doesn’t understand his own position which is why whenever I point out its nonsensical flaws (which other philosophers such as Sam Harris who is an atheist have done) he claims I am misrepresenting him.

“Similarly through moral philosophy you cannot get to any objective truth, but you can arrive at conclusions that are so compelling it would be perverse not to acknowledge that they are at least a sound basis for morality.”

Says who? You? K.
Attention humanity – Steven says something is perverse so you had better get on board with what Steven’s opinion is. And while we are at it, we should find out his favorite color too and make sure we get on board with which color is the bestest of all colors….

Nonsense.

“This is a far more nuanced position than Zach is capable of dealing with, so he keeps arguing in circles, tilting against his straw man.”

Notice again, he never actually points out exactly where I am wrong on his position, he and his fans just keep appealing to some vague non-specific assertion that I am relying on a straw man and how they have showed me wrong so many times it is making their heads hurt. Please.

I on the other hand, keep stating his specific flaws and errors – even provided a diagram for a visual aid.
But yeah, I’m wrong because Steven says so. Good rebuttal. Science ought to be proud.

Oh and don’t forget, his position is correct because I haven’t written mine out, as if my position as a Christian being wrong makes his anymore right. But don’t worry, me arguing for an objective morality means I am arguing for a Christian based morality even though I have said about 30 times that I’m not asserting that in this discussion.
Steven’s position is so broken he can do nothing but assert blind claims and attack my position which I have never provided a defense for, again, in a blog post all about HIS position.

Logical leaps, with straw men, with nonsensical circular logic. All while relying on hidden meanings because the dictionary is for naïve fools who don’t understand just how complicated all of this really is.

And finally, you must remember, it is only Christians who are pot committed and assert their conclusion first and then strive to find evidence to fit it.

“Sometimes, instead of focussing on an irrelevant point, you simply do not answer a question:
For example, my question about the god-like dictator was simply ignored, and when you pretended not to have seen the question and I posted it again, you simply ignored it a second time. Again that’s pretty dishonest.”

You really need me to quote the several posts where I asked for more information on this and what you meant by it?
You don’t make yourself clear, I still am not sure what you are asking exactly with either of the two points.

In my response to one of them asking for more information, you told me that if i didn’t understand it I should go ask someone to explain it to me.

No thanks. I’m willing to respond if you can make yourself clear, but if not, it’s not my job to decipher your meaning.

“Einstein said if you can’t explain something to a 6 year old you don’t understand it yourself.”

You’ve repeated this a few times, but there are so many variations on this quote the attribution is probably not true. Some have attributed this to Feynman as well, but the Einstein versions are more common. Other variations say “to a child,” “grandmother,” “explain something simply,” etc. Its a nice quote with a decent point, but it is also obviously not true.

Thanks for that comment ccbowers. It would be nice if it were true, but I have a feeling I would have difficulty explaining epigenetics and DNA methylation to my 9 year old nephew even though I understand it pretty darned well.

Plus, if it were true, we’d be able to just get the best and brightest from every field who “truly understand” the field and then just have them teach 6 year olds everything so they can skip school altogether and go straight into college or graduate programs.

No more futile than you are Steven’s desperate attempts to justify a system in itself with a first principle that is the very question you are seeking to justify – how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE! You say.

Except that I never said that, Zach. My argument all along has been that human morality is firmly rooted in human values which source from human biological and social evolution.

My argument is a line – a line that tends to branch and wobble – but it is decidedly NOT a circle.

I’m surprised you can’t see that as you seem to be personally very familiar with circular arguments.

Me: Recall that the dilemma is: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? Your answer boils down to: It is good because it “comes from within His unchanging character and nature.
As I see it, you’ve arbitrarily settled on a criterion of goodness that can logically apply to other entities besides God. When framed that way, it sounds more like the first horn.
Zach: No, you aren’t putting the first part of the dilemma correctly. It’s the notion that God goes to some moral system outside of himself in which to know that rape is always bad. God doesn’t do that, so your point fails.

That’s how Wikipedia put it, when translating the original framing into monotheistic terms. In the original pagan context, it’s:

Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

That said, I see your point about the first horn – assuming that “because it is pious” implies knowledge of something external, rather than instinctive behavior and internal knowledge, conditioned by one’s nature or character.

And I also see what you’re trying to do here, which is to introduce a third horn (or “because” clause), thereby escaping the original dilemma.

But I still think the attempt fails, because it begs the question of why anyone should accept that particular nature or character as a sign of moral authority. It just seems totally arbitrary and a non sequitor.

You could, of course, avoid that problem by simply stating outright “because it’s God’s nature”, but then we’re back to the second horn.

Well, it seems that Zack continues to duck out of his burden of proof with more water muddying. Typical religious apologist tactic by dodging and answering questions with questions off the point. He’s also managed to get those denying his claims to attempt to disprove his claims for him, instead of him being the one proving his claim.

I have little doubt that he knows he has no good explanation for his claim and is using every trick in the book to shift the burden of proof and weasel out of direct questions. I have yet to see him answer a question directly, instead either playing semantic games or outright ignoring them.

Speaking of morality, those tactics don’t jibe well with being moral, but rather bespeak dishonesty, deceitfulness, and contempt for any challengers. I’m really not sure what he intends to do here as we all know exactly what he’s doing and where he is going wrong. Is he really that stupid, or does he really think that he’s going to convert anyone? Or is this all fodder for his new blog, which he will doubtless quote mine and cherry pick pieces of the discussion here to make it look like he really “stuck it to those atheists” and “beat them at their own game”.

You guys are doing a great job establishing your position and I wish I could add something more or different that may illucidate his ignorance, but I do think he’s too implacable and close-minded for that. Now it’s gotten to the point where it’s us pointing out the absurdity of his beliefs rather than him being honest for a change and demonstrating his claims. He’s managed to distract everyone, or get them to give up in futility, his claims that absolute objective morality exists and it necessarily requires a law bringer (aka, proof of his christian god of the bible).

I’ve been following this blog very regularly. Another I follow is called Evangelical Realism. In either case, I have a very difficult time sometimes following the theist “pro” arguments…they often don’t make sense to me. Then the non-theist “pro” comes in and explains why the theist argument is weak or invalid. Sometimes the theist “pro” comes back with a response which often sounds even more absurd than their original comment.

I’ve had the same problem with you on this and the other thread. You write things that don’t even make any “common” sense. I follow your response back to what you are commenting on and you’ve simply got things wrong, which you always deny when presented with examples. In even more cases, you don’t even address the primary comment in a post. Then you follow with an incredibly long scatter-shot response that has typically been comprised of you telling writers they’re “obviously” confused or wrong. Mingled in with all of that are irrelevant commentary like the Einstein quote or random piffle like that written by C.S. Lewis. I don’ begrudge anyone adding a little color to their post, but that’s not what you’re doing. You think it bolsters your case.

And how can you even think to write craziness like how much better you understand Dr. Novellas position than he does? I can understand you wanting to challenge his position, that’s fine. I think you understand much of what is being written here even worse than me.

Again, you might be able to accuse me of committing some sort of logical fallacy. What I’m telling you, is you and theist posters like you need to go the extra mile and make your claims and arguments crystal clear. I read what you write and I don’t see much that sounds very convincing much less logical especially once it has been refuted by someone qualified to do so.

Please be sure to let me know when you have your argument for objective morality sussed out. From what I understand, you would be the first to be able to do it.

Just a side note:
I did a ‘find’ for the name ‘Zach’ on both blog posts on this subject, and came up with 529 instances so far. So I’m betting that’s some sort of record.
Probably not a good precedent though
Carry on.

If you ask me, we’ve given him far more attention than he deserves. Kind of like how Dawkins said he woulnd’t debate creationists anymore because it gives the impression of credence and equal consideration, which they don’t have.

I follow your response back to what you are commenting on and you’ve simply got things wrong

If people went back to the beginning of all this, one can clearly see how off he is. Not only did he get a lot of logic wrong, he was egregiously factually wrong on nearly everything he was citing. The worst part is, he’s never owned up to it, just proceeded as if nothing happened and he knew that stuff all along.

Of course, one can see it now with his “might makes right” BS – he was claiming that’s what Theory of Evolution says, along with things like “strong eats weak” (his misrepresentation of Survival of the Fittest).

We shouldn’t be giving this guy the time of day, much less the satisfaction of taking up our valuable time with inane nonsense.

Doesn’t matter. If there are 13 billion views of gravity and just one of them is correct, it doesn’t matter about the other false ones. Your point is illogical.
Except one can actually determine an equation or model for gravity that others can measure, test and agree on.

It’s deeper than that RickK.

If all we had were 13 billion views of gravity and no empiric evidence gravity even existed, then we could say the same – it most likely doesn’t.

He misuses the notion that empiric truth is true regardless of how many believe it or not. It is correct to say that evolution is true regarldess of how many people agree on it. But if all we had was people pontificating about invisible and admittedly – even Zach flat out said so himself – unverifiable by empiric methods sky fairies, then the fact that there are so many opinions is a solid evidence that the most likely explanation is they are wrong.

“And how can you even think to write craziness like how much better you understand Dr. Novellas position than he does? I can understand you wanting to challenge his position, that’s fine. I think you understand much of what is being written here even worse than me.”

Is that any different that the masses here claiming that “such and such” about Christianity is really not what Christians say and it’s really “such and such”?

Regardless, my critique isn’t anything new. Steven’s position is untenable for a reason.

A real-world example of the problem created by (and for) those who subscribe to an “objective” morality is occurring now, regarding the rights of homosexual people to marry.

Clearly, as regards science, fairness, the principle of non-interference without justification, and equality of rights, this one is a no-brainer.

There is no earthly reason why two consenting people should be prevented from marrying each other.

But objective morality, we are informed, requires me to deny certain people rights that I possess. No reason for that interference is put forward. None, apparently, is needed. It is this-or-that Ceiling Kitty’s word and that’s it. Discussion over.

As the years and decades roll by, that aspect of the objective morality will lose its majesty and become an embarrassment.

Then, of course, some oracle will announce that God’s word has been further revealed and that, just possibly, homosexuality isn’t so bad after all.

But the problem, that revealed “objective morality” is inviolate even when in obvious error, remains.
.

“Is that any different that the masses here claiming that “such and such” about Christianity is really not what Christians say and it’s really “such and such”?
Regardless, my critique isn’t anything new. Steven’s position is untenable for a reason.”

See what I mean? I was a Christian and I could probably know what you were talking about if you didn’t use a nebulous phrase like “such and such”. What, specifically, are you referring to?

The statement that your “critique isn’t anything new” carries no weight, either. You haven’t substantiated your claim, only asserted it. If you’re going to substantiate it with any of the things I think you might, you’re probably just as bad off. I’ve seen the critiques by many theists of many things and the record is not impressive. Neither is your claim that Dr. Novellas position is untenable. For a reason? Prove it. You may think you have, but you simply haven’t. You’re wrong by a long shot. The arguments for moral objectivism have worse problems than the ones for moral relativism, so cut your crap and get serious about clarifying your position and your arguments. Otherwise, this whole discussion is nothing more than you making an error in judgement by coming here and throwing down a gauntlet.

“[Dr Novella] also doesn’t tell us why we should care about human emotions. Another faith statement.”

Dr Novella wrote (in response to NAA earlier):

“The premise is that people have feelings. What those feelings are is a separate question. The fact that we have feelings means that some outcomes will be preferable to us. The purpose of a moral system is to prmote those outcomes.

Further…, we need to live together. You may like stealing, but other people do not like being stolen from. So how do we device a moral system that accounts for both of these conflicting desires? We need rules to figure out how to resolve such conflicts. For example, we can apply principles of ownership, non maleficence, and the general rule that negative rights (the right not to have something done to you) supercedes positive rights (the right to do something).”

Essentially, whether or not we “should” care about human emotions, the fact is we DO care about human emotions (pretty much universally unless one is a sociopath, has suffered a relevant head injury or serious childhood abuse and neglect).

That fact leads us logicaly, as Dr Novella suggests, to working out a system where my emotions and yours can most comfortable exist, and co-exist.

Ezekiel 14:9 – And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 – For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Some have said they’ve learned from these conversations and I, unfortunately, can say that I haven’t. Zach is an internet persona. I’ve encountered these Zachs and their various manifestations too many times I’d rather not remember. I went through this nonsense in the Usenet wars of the late 90′s and everything we bring up has been brought up to the same non-effect on these peanut brains. Maybe they’ll come around, but that usually happens on their own when they’ve walked away from these debates which only cause them to entrench further.

The Zachs of the world have arrived at their worldview from the Bible and cultural indoctrination. That’s it. There’s no other foundation. You can’t arrive at Christianity from any other means; not logic, not science, not reason.

Zach wrote that Dr. Novella’s position is what’s on trial. As usual, Zach fails at understanding the terminology that he throws about. If Dr. Novella’s view is on trial, it’s Zach’s job to prove it’s guilty, not Dr. Novella’s job to prove it’s truth. Zach is required to fully lay out his case and all damning evidence. Dr. Novella doesn’t have to do anything. Given that Zach has failed to do so, the verdict is not guilty. Checkmate, Zach.

Zach accuses others of naked assertions then he prattles on about why his deity does what he imagines it does. That’s rich accusing others of making faith based decisions. He doesn’t even understand what “blind faith” means. Zach, read carefully. Blind faith is doing something that makes no sense, has no evidence, and there’s no good reason for doing it. That’s religion for you. If we say harming others is bad, that’s not blind faith. That’s a reasonable conclusion based on how I want to be treated and how others have expressed they don’t want to be treated. It’s supported by evidence. Believing in an objective morality handed to you, magically, through Bronze Age sheep shearers with no evidence whatsoever, is BLIND FAITH.

You also keep positing a supposed difference between a moral system and morals. You apparently are arguing that there’s a system where slavery and mass rape are OK under an unchanging objective morality which then allows for slavery and mass rape to be immoral at a later date. This is an escape hatch to explain away the horrendous morality we witness in the Bible commanded by Yahweh. Sorry, Zacho, it doesn’t work. Your thought processes are a mile high and one inch deep. Your argumentation is as shallow as a coloring book. A coloring book in black and white.

I would ask you again what’s the objective standard for your objective moral system, but we already know the answer. You don’t have one. Or at least you realize you can’t provide one without resorting to circular reasoning.

It was telling you didn’t list what subjects your degrees were in. Not that it would matter. You could lie but we can still see through the fallacies and other puerile keyboard fapping. There’s no coherent sense to what you write. My observation of you being like the zoo primate throwing random poo against the plexiglass hoping to get attention is proven accurate. You’re not a philosopher. You’re an apologist. There’s a difference. An apologist doesn’t give two whits about discovering the truth. An apologist never dialogues, never learns.

Zach, you made a royal ass of yourself for posterity. Congratulations.

Oh, and btw. I hope you point your church mates to this conversation and web site. It’s more likely than not it will turn minds our way than yours as you hope.

how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE! You say.

That is exactly what you did when I asked why it matters what god says about morality, and you said because we owe him a debt (which, ironically, you later downplayed as not meaning anything to God).

And you also said this:

a. what do you mean by God’s word (a specific Holy book or?)

b. It assumes that man can have true happiness outside of his purpose that God created him for – the whole Blaise Pascal God shaped hole idea.

“a.” is just insanity on your part. That’s your problem to figure out, since you appear to believe this unverifiable nonsense. Did you seriously forget that? I am only pointing out that, even if you knew for certain, if I granted you every factual claim you make, it would not make your moral system any more objective. You are still using human consequences as a reason for it.

“b.” is false. I didn’t assume that. And even if it were true that your religious mechanism for happiness were superior, that wouldn’t refute the critical fact which you keep dancing around: you are still appealing to human benefit as the reason for obedience.

You aren’t very good at this stuff. I will repeat the obvious conclusion, just in case it helps to hear it once more: You don’t have a different motivational basis for morality, you just believe in silly unproven things. This reminds me of the so-called “alternative” medicine crowd. Despite their propaganda, they don’t actually have a different philosophy of health. They just believe in stupid ways of producing it.

A real-world example of the problem created by (and for) those who subscribe to an “objective” morality is occurring now, regarding the rights of homosexual people to marry.
Clearly, as regards science, fairness, the principle of non-interference without justification, and equality of rights, this one is a no-brainer.
There is no earthly reason why two consenting people should be prevented from marrying each other.

Do you have any earthly (or other) reason why I or anyone else should care about two consenting people or why they should be allowed to marry each other?

What standard are you appealing to, and can I please see it? I didn’t get this memo you are referring to.

Incoming “you are sick for asking for my foundation for morality.”

I question your humanist dogma.

But the problem, that revealed “objective morality” is inviolate even when in obvious error, remains.

Obvious? Obvious to who? Those who have a motivation to denounce it and reject it? Oh wait, it’s only theists who arrive at their position from an outside motivation….
This entire “free thinker” non-sense is the exact opposite of what it claims to be. Read Aldus Huxley about the motivations of atheist to remain atheist – he himself was an atheist, but wasn’t so naïve to think that atheist is free from all motivation.

If skeptics were just as skeptic about their skepticism as they were skeptic about theism, there wouldn’t be any skeptics left.

See what I mean? I was a Christian and I could probably know what you were talking about if you didn’t use a nebulous phrase like “such and such”. What, specifically, are you referring to?”

“Such and such’ is an obvious (insert here) placeholder. Maybe you haven’t been reading the comments here so you haven’t noticed – but there have been several claims that Christianity really says something other than what Christians claim it says.
For example, below I respond to some typical internet atheist Bible verses taken out of context that have the reading comprehension level of a 3rd grader .

Neither is your claim that Dr. Novellas position is untenable. For a reason? Prove it. You may think you have, but you simply haven’t. You’re wrong by a long shot.

The arguments for moral objectivism have worse problems than the ones for moral relativism, so cut your crap and get serious about clarifying your position and your arguments. Otherwise, this whole discussion is nothing more than you making an error in judgement by coming here and throwing down a gauntlet.

I actually have clarified several times but I have no problem doing it again.
I typically just get a “no you”, or a “you don’t understand” or “I have proven this wrong so many time” response.

Now, do dissect the quote below from Steven.

“The premise is that people have feelings.”

Yes Steven, people have feelings – but so what? They have a lot of feelings that involve both vice and virtue.

What those feelings are is a separate question. The fact that we have feelings means that some outcomes will be preferable to us.

Correct.
The rapist feels the need and desire to rape and dominate his victim.
The person raped feels the need to not be raped and not be dominated by the rapist.

How do you determine which outcome is the preferable one?

Of course you and I feel the rapist is wrong, but why? It repulses us, but how do we justify our repulsive reaction when the rapist doesn’t have the same repulsive views of rape. In short, why are we right and he wrong?

The purpose of a moral system is to promote those outcomes.

What outcomes? You didn’t delineate how you determine this, or which outcomes are preferable.

Further…, we need to live together. You may like stealing, but other people do not like being stolen from.

Hermits live by themselves in isolation – this is not the norm so I won’t use it as my primary example, but it should be referenced none the less.

Humans do live in community, but not a global community. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in evolution that dictates that human’s need to care for all of humanity (otherwise why don’t we all?)
Also, the rapist might realize that he shouldn’t rape his children and immediate family/tribe for consequential reasons. But beyond consequentialism how do you assert that he should care about those he doesn’t live with or rely on?

So how do we device a moral system that accounts for both of these conflicting desires?

Which desires?
Human feelings which comprise both vice and virtue?
Humans need to live in community which only can be applied to consequentialism?

We need rules to figure out how to resolve such conflicts.

What conflicts?

Why do we need rules? Do lions need rules or is what lions do simply what they do?
And even if we do need rules, you must first figure out the goal of these rules without arbitrary choosing which feelings you want to promote, and which people we should care about to live with in a community. If you assert that we should try to live peacefully with all humans and create a global community to the best we can, then you might believe this, but it is only a belief or preference until you can demonstrate on what basis that we should. You can say it’s better for everyone, but you have not demonstrated why I should care about the benefit of everyone, except for when it happens to benefit me – consequentialism.

For example, we can apply principles of ownership, non maleficence, and the general rule that negative rights (the right not to have something done to you) supercedes positive rights (the right to do something).”

Do you have any evidence for this belief? Or is it just something you happen to like (your preference of blue over red)?

In response to Steven someone else wrote.

“Essentially, whether or not we “should” care about human emotions, the fact is we DO care about human emotions (pretty much universally unless one is a sociopath, has suffered a relevant head injury or serious childhood abuse and neglect).

This completely misses the mark in representing the vast range of social and historical morality. By your estimation entire cultures and history were sociopaths.

This is clearly not the case. So you are back to asserting your preference as the moral truth based solely on what you happen to like (blue instead of red).

Why should we accept your favorite value over the next culture’s favorite value?

That fact leads us logicaly, as Dr Novella suggests, to working out a system where my emotions and yours can most comfortable exist, and co-exist.
That is also a reason WHY we should care about human emotions.”

1. Logical laws do not apply to preferences – if you think they do then you should have no problem demonstrating how your favorite color is the best color and how everyone who doesn’t agree is wrong.

2. Why should we try to make everyone comfortable? Why not just focus on myself and those I happen to care about? Or just myself even?

You aren’t demonstrating anything beyond “I like this and you should too or you are a sociopath”.

“Zach:
The reason it is wrong to lie is because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Therefore, right and wrong are not determined by God’s ability to be stronger than anyone else.
1 Kings 22:23 – Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22 – Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10 – Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7 – O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9 – And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 – For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

Rinse and repeat for the remaining verses. These points have been countered without a doubt numerous times. If you refuse to accept the answer because you are committed to your position than I cannot help you.

“The Zachs of the world have arrived at their worldview from the Bible and cultural indoctrination. That’s it. There’s no other foundation. You can’t arrive at Christianity from any other means; not logic, not science, not reason.”
“Zach, you made a royal ass of yourself for posterity. Congratulations.
Oh, and btw. I hope you point your church mates to this conversation and web site. It’s more likely than not it will turn minds our way than yours as you hope.”

Zach, you made a royal ass of yourself for posterity. Congratulations.

The pretentious smugness is strong in this one…

You need to go outside or something, you are obviously way to angry for this conversation.

Also, I will not be reading your posts in the future nor responding for the sake of your blood pressure.

“Zach on 13 Jan 2013 at 2:48 pm
how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE! You say.”

“That is exactly what you did when I asked why it matters what god says about morality, and you said because we owe him a debt (which, ironically, you later downplayed as not meaning anything to God).”

That doesn’t follow. You asked why we should care about God’s laws, in which I responded with several reasons. If God is real and He has created us, then he has authority over us whether we like it or not – this is rooted in the concept that one who creates an object for a specific purpose has engineered that object to fulfill that purpose. One who creates something can do what they want with that item. If the item objects, then so what? Someone provided the example of a parent creating a child, but that analogy fails since a parent is already under the rules of a creator and does not own themselves even, they are using matter on loan, using their reproductive system on loan, and thus do not own it. It is a false analogy.

“a.” is just insanity on your part. That’s your problem to figure out, since you appear to believe this unverifiable nonsense. Did you seriously forget that? I am only pointing out that, even if you knew for certain, if I granted you every factual claim you make, it would not make your moral system any more objective. You are still using human consequences as a reason for it.

Well since you said so I guess I have no other choice to drop my “unverifiable nonsense” and go with what you say.

““b.” is false. I didn’t assume that. And even if it were true that your religious mechanism for happiness were superior, that wouldn’t refute the critical fact which you keep dancing around: you are still appealing to human benefit as the reason for obedience.”

No, I am appealing to several reasons for obedience. The main one is that God made us so He has authority over us.

“You aren’t very good at this stuff. I will repeat the obvious conclusion, just in case it helps to hear it once more: You don’t have a different motivational basis for morality, you just believe in silly unproven things. This reminds me of the so-called “alternative” medicine crowd. Despite their propaganda, they don’t actually have a different philosophy of health. They just believe in stupid ways of producing it.”

Of course the typical and absolutely expected garbage responses from Zach, which have left me no desire to respond. But when you start on evolution… well, I just can’t help myself.

Humans do live in community, but not a global community. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in evolution that dictates that human’s need to care for all of humanity (otherwise why don’t we all?)

We don’t live in a global community? How incredibly stupid are you? Where do you think the components for the computer you write such drivel came from? Or the people who invented the various components? Or the systems that got it all to you?

And yes, I am quite happy to correct you when you are wrong. “Evolution” didn’t stop at some arbitrary point around the time of your bronze aged mythology. It continues to this very day on a technological, cultural, and yes physiological level. We haven’t stagnated evolutionarily. So yes, we are, absolutely and without question, evolving to the point where it dictates that we should – for sake of our best interest – care for all of humanity.

Some of us are even more enlightened to extend that even further beyond the barest requirements of our evolution to date. But even those that aren’t shouldn’t be stupid enough to freeze us in an evolutionary time as horrendously harmful to human life as the beginning of the common era.

What conflicts?

Why do we need rules? Do lions need rules or is what lions do simply what they do?

What conflicts? I’m seriously questioning if you are brain damaged or not.

Do lions need rules or live the way they do? Here’s a better question – do you want to live like a lion? Why not? If so, please, for the sake of everyone here renounce the technology we as a global community have provided you and go hang out with your lion friends.

you must first figure out the goal of these rules without arbitrary choosing which feelings you want to promote

Hello everyone, my name is Zach and I am a brick wall. Tell me everything you can, and I’ll keep parroting nonsense that I need to think is true like the notion that you all are advocating arbitrary choosing of feelings.

If God is real and He has created us

You need to get past that “if” there bucko. The rest of what you say is meaningless without it.

This is a boys view.

When you come to see what exactly God is/was willing to do for his “chattel” it’s pretty remarkable.

Yep. Pretty remarkable that an all loving, all powerful, all knowing being who literally created us from nothing loves to sit back and watch us wallow in misery when it would be absolutely trivially meaningless for it to snap it all away.

The sad part is that if I could snap my fingers and cure the sick, feed the poor, and stop violence I would. Which already makes me better than your god.

Well, good job, Zach. You have convinced me that objective morality is not plausible. And confirmed my conclusion that there is no primary lawgiver, certainly not anything like the Abrahamic god.

Morality is a product of consciousness which includes sentience, wisdom and intentionality among other characteristics. Morality is necessarily subjective it seems.

Diminished cognition can account for the variations in subjective morality. There are many human conditions that can account for this diminution. The same holds true for animals.

I’m also finding evidence that the laws of logic do not necessarily apply to morality similar to the way they do not apply to literary criticism, but do apply to mathematics.

Finally, “might makes right” is probably better stated “might makes policy”. Might doesn’t necessarily equate to violence, or, if so, only as a final measure of response to non-compliance within the borders of a group. One individual or group can detest the moral code of another, yet unless their circles overlap somehow, sovereignty is generally accepted…not always true, of course, but more now than ever, I think. And policy isn’t always right which we see all around us every day. Hand in hand with that problem is the ongoing effort to change policy through discussion, analysis, awareness, negotiation and participation in a process whereby enough support (might) is accumulated to make the desired changes.

So thanks for prompting me (via a combination of my pursuit of truth and nearly total frustration reading your posts) to do hours of reading on the various components of the arguments put forth in this discussion.

Well stated JJ Borgman. And kudos to your efforts, especially as a reformed theist.

Your comments also spurred a thought. Zach asserts that “creators” hold “authority” and thus the morality stems from the intents of the creator.

So that would mean that all the appliances in my home are subject to the authority of humans and their morality would hence be derived from our intent as to their purpose.

Does this mean that an objective and absolute morality exists for the appliances in my home?

The argument seems to parallel – Zach posits that the objective and absolute morality of God (or lawgiver or whatever) exists in vacuo regardless of our thoughts, desires, or even existence.

So does the fact that my appliances have no thoughts or desires mean there is no system of morality for my appliances, or does it exist regardless, serving no possible purpose? Or does it exist waiting for my appliances to gain sentience and then muddle through it to understand their proper role in the universe as our creations and thus disover the “true” and “objective” and “absolute” morality they have been subject to all along?

That doesn’t follow. You asked why we should care about God’s laws, in which I responded with several reasons. If God is real and He has created us, then he has authority over us whether we like it or not – this is rooted in the concept that one who creates an object for a specific purpose has engineered that object to fulfill that purpose. One who creates something can do what they want with that item. If the item objects, then so what?

Well, if your refrigerator is closer to a “Sonny” (I, Robot) than a standard side-by-side, Energy Star w/Ice maker, you might have some ethical considerations to make.

A point I found fallacious was the notion that a creator (author, sculptor, engineer, inventor, etc) has automatic authority over the created. Not so. Ownership (authority over) of created items can be predicated on all sorts of things. In addition, in our reality there is normally no question as to what or who is the creator and the created. We have a huge problem when it comes to the proposition that we were created. We are, decidedly, not appliances.

Finally, “might makes right” is probably better stated “might makes policy”. Might doesn’t necessarily equate to violence, or, if so, only as a final measure of response to non-compliance within the borders of a group. One individual or group can detest the moral code of another, yet unless their circles overlap somehow, sovereignty is generally accepted…not always true, of course, but more now than ever, I think. And policy isn’t always right which we see all around us every day. Hand in hand with that problem is the ongoing effort to change policy through discussion, analysis, awareness, negotiation and participation in a process whereby enough support (might) is accumulated to make the desired changes.

Everything here is consistent and logical until you say, “policy isn’t always right which we see all around us every day. Hand in hand with that problem is the ongoing effort to change policy through discussion, analysis, awareness, negotiation and participation in a process whereby enough support (might) is accumulated to make the desired changes.”

What objective standard are you appealing to in order to determine which policies are the “wrong” ones? You essentially pull a 180 on everything you said in the start of your point.

“Like I said, Zach’s view of humanity is the we are all God’s Chattel.”

I think if we are going to be fair and compare world views, Christianity has a much higher view of man’s value and worth.

“At the same time it seems Dr. N. is correct- just because something is not objective doesn’t mean it is completely arbitrary.”

Under Steven’s view morality boils down to “I like this and so should you” (blue is better than red).

“Everything here is consistent and logical until you say, ““policy isn’t always right which we see all around us every day. Hand in hand with that problem is the ongoing effort to change policy through discussion, analysis, awareness, negotiation and participation in a process whereby enough support (might) is accumulated to make the desired changes.”"

What objective standard are you appealing to in order to determine which policies are the “wrong” ones? You essentially pull a 180 on everything you said in the start of your point.”

At the top of the post you are responding to, I wrote,

“Well, good job, Zach. You have convinced me that objective morality is not plausible. And confirmed my conclusion that there is no primary lawgiver, certainly not anything like the Abrahamic god.

Morality is a product of consciousness which includes sentience, wisdom and intentionality among other characteristics. Morality is necessarily subjective it seems.

Diminished cognition can account for the variations in subjective morality. There are many human conditions that can account for this diminution. The same holds true for animals.

I’m also finding evidence that the laws of logic do not necessarily apply to morality similar to the way they do not apply to literary criticism, but do apply to mathematics.”

Under Steven’s view morality boils down to “I like this and so should you” (blue is better than red).

Putting aside whether or not that’s a fair & accurate portrayal of Steven’s view, it does your cause no good to substitute “God” for “I” in the statement above, or even to reword it as “God says ‘Do X’, therefore you should do X”, given all of the problems with the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and with theodicy in general, summed up elegantly (if unwittingly) by nybgrus above:

The sad part is that if I could snap my fingers and cure the sick, feed the poor, and stop violence I would. Which already makes me better than your god.

I think if we are going to be fair and compare world views, Christianity has a much higher view of man’s value and worth.

The very fact that I believe with a very high level of confidence that there is no afterlife and this is the only one we have forces me to place a vastly higher importance and worth on human life than any religion possibly could.

As tmac57 said – religion makes us god’s chattel and minimizes the misery of this world for the possibility of the next. Value and worth are a product of rarity. Living eternally compared to a fleeting life means you value speculation whereas I actually value life.

And yes, mufi, it was a quite intentional statement. One I see absolutely no recourse to assail. Of course, it is much more elegantly stated by Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

But in any event, I (and most people of course) am certainly better than any god proposed to date since in the absence of god I exist, and in the presence of god I am more moral and just.

“I think if we are going to be fair and compare world views, Christianity has a much higher view of man’s value and worth.”

Nonsense. Christianity sees mankind as nothing but the toy of creator who is willing to hand out an eternity of torment and pain based on any failings that occur in a few brief years. Slaves and puppets in a rigged game where the only choice is adherence to an arbitrary decree.

Human dignity and worth are found in the realization that we are responsible for creating any good that exists in our world. Yes it makes our morality an arbitrary and subjective thing, and it is something we often fail at. But the simple fact that we are creatures capable of making the attempt to improve our societies is where our value lies.

“You must be confused. You asserted that some “might makes policy” actions are “wrong” thus going against your foundation for determining morality.

Where/how do you get to apply your superior veto to the “might makes policy” method? Why are your views the exception?

Do you really not understand the problem here?”

Actually, it is you, once again, who is either a) confused or b) willfully ignorant.

The problem lies in your refusal to see that I have, in fact, rejected your assertion that morality is objective. You also refuse to understand that I have been convinced that the laws of logic have a limited applicability to morality.

My statement that a policy can be found to be wrong is not me (or my superior veto – straw man much?) saying the policy is wrong, rather it is a hypothetical suggesting the individual or group can find it to be wrong. Sometimes the effort to change a policy begins with an individual effort. Agreement with that effort along with sufficient support from others can redefine that portion of the moral code of that group.

Morality is always a work in progress, under evolutionary pressure. Sovereign individuals or societies establish a moral code for use in their circle of influence. Shifts in public opinion can affect where that sovereign society decides if existing policy suits their wants or needs. Increases in knowledge can do the same thing. Consensus is the might. The policy is the result of the consensus. Consensus obviously is perpetually in flux and can be subjective in many cases and objective in others.

As I’ve already stated, Thank-you, Zach, for motivating me to flesh out my view of this topic. Unless you’ve got something new to add, this has become ponderous and we have nothing more to discuss. Really, you plumb tuckered me out, though I have to admit it’s a feel-good kind of tuckered out.

But in any event, I (and most people of course) am certainly better than any god proposed to date since in the absence of god I exist, and in the presence of god I am more moral and just.

This is why I maintain that secular morality is superior than religious morality and that, even IF I were to be convinced that the christain god of the bible were real (same goes with there being a jewish god, muslim god, or any number of other gods of the major world religions), I would not worship him for moral and ethical reasons, especially if that god is anything like what’s described in their holy books.

“I think if we are going to be fair and compare world views, Christianity has a much higher view of man’s value and worth.”

Nonsense. Christianity sees mankind as nothing but the toy of creator who is willing to hand out an eternity of torment and pain based on any failings that occur in a few brief years.

More than even that, christianity regards humans as worthless vile scum sinners, from birth. Little babies are vile, horrid creatures worthy of being dunked in the lake of fire for eternity. While many christians try to find ways around this and explain away this despicable notion, the fact remains that few of them would disagree that all humans are born sinners not worthy of heaven, and the only way around that is to accept Jesus as their personal savior and beg him for forgiveness, just for being born! I can easily find bible quotes from the NT attesting to this.

For the life of me, I can’t see how that regards humans as valuable or worthwhile.

You also refuse to understand that I have been convinced that the laws of logic have a limited applicability to morality.

We have repeated this over and over, and even Dr. Novella tried to explain (with much more patience than I have with him) that logic and science merely inform morals, they don’t determine them outright nor do they equal them. As is typical with him and most other religious apologists, he either dodges, misses the point, or turns it into a farcical strawman. In fact, nearly every refutation he has have been based on strawmen. In my estimation, he’s gotten very little correct, either in logic (which he clearly doesn’t understand) or in science (which he clearly is ignorant of).

The only thing he seems to be good at is parroting bible quotes and apologist talking points. There is very little I find compelling, admirable, or appealing about his position or his worldview.

Thank-you, Zach, for motivating me to flesh out my view of this topic.

I would caution “throwing pearls before the swine”. He will likely take your sentiment to mean he taught you something with his knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. That’s the monumental arrogance of his religion, fueled by a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger.

Instead, what he will fail to realize is that he was merely instructional to us as a debate tool, someone that models typical creationist/apologist concepts that we can use to deconstruct and gauge how to further refine our understandings of them, as well as the apologist mind. That’s really all he has to offer in that regard. In other words, what not to be.

I sincerely wish more apologists were honest about their positions, but I suppose that wouldn’t leave them much to argue on…

My disadvantage is lack of education in philosophy and logic. I feel like I had my aha! moment recently. Certain things have been stated over and over (on both sides), but I didn’t recognize them.

It’s kind of like in junior high when I was studying grammar. Bless little old Mrs. Andersen; she worked with me after school because I had this mental block and just didn’t get it. One afternoon, it all just clicked!! I looked at her with a big smile on my face and proceeded to explain back to her what she was attempting to help me understand. Then I went on to explain several other things I had been stuck on. What a great memory.

The aha moments are one of the best things to experience in life and I recommend everyone to pursue them.

Why should we accept your favorite value over the next culture’s favorite value?

That is up to us (humanity) to decide, without the benefit of a global cosmic playbook. Period.

Human society has developed norms that favor/protect those within our community (family, clan, tribe, neighborhood, town, country), if necessary at the expense of other communities. These have clear survival and evolutionary motives.

As you say, there is nothing directly in evolution that directs people to see all humanity as their community. But since “community” is in part determined by those with whom we are familiar, and since communication has steadily improved over time, then we see broader and broader portions of the world as “just like us” and more familiar. And sure enough, morality overall has tended toward greater acceptance of “others” and steadily more support for treating everybody as we’d treat members of our community.

Why have the “community” instincts won out over the “desire to dominate” instincts”? Because “everybody works together” is a model that satisfies more needs for more people than a “everybody battles everybody” model. So over time, what works, wins.

The fact that moral standards have changed over time, the fact that philosophers are still arguing over different moral frameworks, the fact that theologians are still arguing over “interpretations” of various ancient texts to specify a moral framework are all consistent with a universe that has no objective moral standards.

There are just the tools and values that evolution and human social development have given us. Human societies have tried different models that appeal to different mixes of our values, and those that have the most support have stuck around.

The evidence we see in humanity and in our setting in this universe are inconsistent with the existence of a universally objective morality.

I know. I just wasn’t sure whether or not you had connected it to the same concepts/terms that I was using (“second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and with theodicy”).

Nice Epicurus quote, btw.

It might interest you to know that, in the Talmud, the Hebrew-Aramaic word that’s often used for “heretic” – and which is still in use today within Orthodox Jewish circles – is “apikorus”, derived from “Epicurus.”

So apparently the early rabbis (among other theists, no doubt) felt threatened by the force of his arguments, as well they should.

Zach wrote: “Under Steven’s view morality boils down to “I like this and so should you” (blue is better than red).”

Zach cannot get away from his silly straw men, no matter how many times he is corrected.

My position, clearly stated multiple times, is not that values are based solely on my personal preference, but the most basic preferences we can come up with that are the most universal. This relates to the false analogy – blue is better than read. This analogy is a false equivalency.

Rather, moral philosophy (to clarify, this is not just my view, as Zach would have you believe, but the result of centuries of philosophical scholarship) would say – All things considered, I would rather not be brutally murdered. Everyone I know would also not want to be brutally murdered. Most people would not want to be brutally murdered. Perhaps we should arrange things in our society to minimize people getting brutally murdered.

Sure, there may be someone out there who would like to be brutally murdered. We can worry about them as an exception to the general rule.

“Putting aside whether or not that’s a fair & accurate portrayal of Steven’s view, it does your cause no good to substitute “God” for “I” in the statement above, or even to reword it as “God says ‘Do X’, therefore you should do X”, given all of the problems with the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and with theodicy in general, summed up elegantly (if unwittingly) by nybgrus above:”

I have demonstrated above that modern philosophy has already demonstrated that the dilemma is false. Why are you committed to this false dilemma?

“The sad part is that if I could snap my fingers and cure the sick, feed the poor, and stop violence I would. Which already makes me better than your god.”

I did not see this since I skip over everything written by nybgrus, but since you quoted it I’ll respond to it.

It assumes two things:
First, that he knows what is “better” and “worse”. Rather, what he only has what he thinks is best (red over blue).

““Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?””

Second, the problem is known as Theodicy – the problem of evil.

If God is all powerful and there is evil then he must not be good.
If God is good and there is evil then he must not be all powerful
If God is (a the Christians claim) good and all powerful then why is there evil?

The Bible never tells us why. BUT just because we don’t have a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason.

This is rooted in radical rationalism. It basically says, “Because my finite mind can’t plumb the depths of the universe for a possible reason why a good and all powerful God would allow evil and suffering mean’s there can’t be a reason for it!”

It’s fallacious.

Christian doesn’t provide the reason for why there is evil and suffering, but it does tell us one reason it is can’t be. It can’t be because God is indifferent to it or doesn’t care. Because in Christianity you have God putting Himself directly on the hook for evil and suffering, by breaking into human existence via Jesus Christ to die and suffer terribly, in order that He can one day put and end to evil and suffering for good.

Christianity doesn’t teach that in the end you go to some cloud like Heaven, it teaches that through Jesus Christ God will eventually put right all that is wrong with the world.

Regardless of whether or not you believe Christianity is true, you should at least want it to be true; yes I know that wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.

If this life is all we have and in the end we die and in the very end the universe ceases to have life it then any choices we make now don’t matter. If you choose to be a moral monster (whatever that means) or you chose to be a good person (whatever that means), it won’t make any difference in the ultimate end. This life is all you have you say, so then why does knowledge matter? Why does any of this conversation matter? Go live your life and enjoy it, embrace hedonism.

Christians believe that man exists forever. And the implications of that far outweigh a man who only exists for 100 years or less.

“Nonsense. Christianity sees mankind as nothing but the toy of creator who is willing to hand out an eternity of torment and pain based on any failings that occur in a few brief years. Slaves and puppets in a rigged game where the only choice is adherence to an arbitrary decree.”

See my C. S. Lewis quote. Christians believe that all who are in hell choose hell.

“Human dignity and worth are found in the realization that we are responsible for creating any good that exists in our world. Yes it makes our morality an arbitrary and subjective thing, and it is something we often fail at. But the simple fact that we are creatures capable of making the attempt to improve our societies is where our value lies.”

Care to provide your objective standard for what is good and what is improvement? Or is it only what you happen to like that is good and an improvement? And if so, why should we care about what you like over the next persons?

“The problem lies in your refusal to see that I have, in fact, rejected your assertion that morality is objective. You also refuse to understand that I have been convinced that the laws of logic have a limited applicability to morality.”

So stop calling certain morality “good”. For that implies that there is an actual objective standard for good and bad morality, as opposed to your subjective view that morality is just what we happen to like.

You are the one using terms that necessitate an objective standard and claiming to not believe in an objective standard. It’s nonsensical.

“My statement that a policy can be found to be wrong is not me (or my superior veto – straw man much?) saying the policy is wrong, rather it is a hypothetical suggesting the individual or group can find it to be wrong. Sometimes the effort to change a policy begins with an individual effort. Agreement with that effort along with sufficient support from others can redefine that portion of the moral code of that group.”

So rape is only “wrong” once enough people in society deem they don’t value it anymore?
Or there is no right and wrong and what “is” is what “is” – there is no “ought”.

“Morality is always a work in progress, under evolutionary pressure. “

So if morality is subjective you must mean “progress” not as improvement, but as change, since improvement would suggest an actual objective standard by which to judge where and improvement is made and where one is needed.

“Sovereign individuals or societies establish a moral code for use in their circle of influence. Shifts in public opinion can affect where that sovereign society decides if existing policy suits their wants or needs. Increases in knowledge can do the same thing. Consensus is the might. The policy is the result of the consensus. Consensus obviously is perpetually in flux and can be subjective in many cases and objective in others.”

So might makes right? If society by large decides that circumcising their female daughers, or slavery is “right” then that is the new “right”?

I understand now, thank you.

“That is up to us (humanity) to decide, without the benefit of a global cosmic playbook. Period.

Human society has developed norms that favor/protect those within our community (family, clan, tribe, neighborhood, town, country), if necessary at the expense of other communities. These have clear survival and evolutionary motives.”

See the question I just asked above.

“As you say, there is nothing directly in evolution that directs people to see all humanity as their community. But since “community” is in part determined by those with whom we are familiar, and since communication has steadily improved over time, then we see broader and broader portions of the world as “just like us” and more familiar. And sure enough, morality overall has tended toward greater acceptance of “others” and steadily more support for treating everybody as we’d treat members of our community.”

Please define improved, why you define it that way, how you determine what is “improved” over not “improved” and why your view of what is “improved” is the objective one? You know, the one not continent on your values (blue over red).

“The fact that moral standards have changed over time, the fact that philosophers are still arguing over different moral frameworks, the fact that theologians are still arguing over “interpretations” of various ancient texts to specify a moral framework are all consistent with a universe that has no objective moral standards.”

That does not follow. At best you conclude we simply can’t know the objective standard. But that implies you have complete knowledge yourself on all the different views and how they are all wrong. Otherwise, how do you get to assert that their disagreement matters or shows that they are wrong? That doesn’t follow.

“Zach cannot get away from his silly straw men, no matter how many times he is corrected.
My position, clearly stated multiple times, is not that values are based solely on my personal preference, but the most basic preferences we can come up with that are the most universal. This relates to the false analogy – blue is better than read. This analogy is a false equivalency.”

When you find a way to prove your naked assertions here let me know. Until then you are relying on waving hand gestures to deal with my critiques.

“Rather, moral philosophy (to clarify, this is not just my view, as Zach would have you believe, but the result of centuries of philosophical scholarship) would say – All things considered, I would rather not be brutally murdered. Everyone I know would also not want to be brutally murdered. Most people would not want to be brutally murdered. Perhaps we should arrange things in our society to minimize people getting brutally murdered.”

Or perhaps I should arrange things so that I and the ones I care about should not be brutally murdered.

Again, on what basis do you assert that your view is better than mine? (red is better than blue).

remember, we are dealing within the subjective framework here. The laws of logic are no help telling you how to start a moral system, they can only be applied to your moral system once the foundation has been led. So about that foundation, why love over hate? So what if everyone doesn’t want to be murdered. I doubt any animal wants to be eaten, but it happens all the same. So why red over blue?

“Sure, there may be someone out there who would like to be brutally murdered. We can worry about them as an exception to the general rule.
This is distinctly unlike preferring red or blue.“

How? It’s the same thing. You are asserting your preference as the “right one” (whatever that means).

Blue = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so lets all agree not to eat other!
Red = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so I’ll get enough people on my team who agree to not each other so we can exploit and abuse the weaker team and eat them first so they can’t eat us.

Never underestimate the power of banter and sarcasm when faced with evidence that counters one’s view.

It takes a fundamentalist creationist apologist to display such breathtaking ignorance, and then brag about it, as to leave everyone in jaw-dropping speechlessness.

Zach is like a guy who brings the game Operation to a conference on vascular surgery. He’s the guy who brings a Tasco telescope to a summit on astrophysics. He’s the guy who brings a wiffle ball set to a World Series. He’s the guy who seriously thinks those things are legitimate additions to where he’s bringing them.

What you proved to me, for the last time, is that your position is incorrect. None of your repetitious posturing, and to write plainly – your whining, is going to help you. If all you want is the last word, it’s all yours.

You originally said we owe god a debt, which you have now changed to humans being his objects and therefore under his rule. But even if that were your argument, it still wouldn’t address the real problem which is that you would then need to justify your belief that objects belong to their creator. You are still doing the same circular BS.

This is not only foolishly missing the point, but after arguing that humans are God’s workbench objects, you spin someone’s chattel observation as being a childish view.

You have a big problem with consistency of thought and general comprehension.

“The dilemma is a real one and you can’t just escape it via incoherent statements and non sequitors.”

Again,

The dilemma:
1. God goes to an external source of morality (something outside of himself) to get his morality and find out what is right and wrong. This source would then be the real God as God Himself would answer to it.
2. God makes up whatever morality he feels and can change it on a whim’s notice whenever he so feels. So right is not truly right, it is whatever God has decided that day, week, month, year, century, etc.

Christianity.

3. Morality not external to God for it is rooted in God’s character – the two are inseparable. God neither goes to an external source outside of himself to find out what morality is right or wrong, nor does he make up as he goes along, it is rooted in his character, consistent with his character, and cannot be altered without altering God’s character. Since his character cannot be altered, neither can morality.

Zach wrote: “Blue = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so lets all agree not to eat other!
Red = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so I’ll get enough people on my team who agree to not each other so we can exploit and abuse the weaker team and eat them first so they can’t eat us.

Why blue over red? ”

Because that is just one tiny slice of a moral system. One point. When you start to combine that with other lines of moral reasoning, and try to make the whole construct work together, you can answer questions about why one approach may be better than the other.

Seriously – pick up a good book on moral philosophy. You should at least have a basic understanding of the centuries of scholarship you are so casually dismissing. Your understand appears to be as superficially and biased as the average creationist’s understanding of evolution.

“See my C. S. Lewis quote. Christians believe that all who are in hell choose hell.”

Hate to tell you but C.S. Lewis was hardly a trusted authority on much beyond the color of Mr. Tumnus’ legs. His religious apologetics are nothing with any weight behind them.

In Christianity humans only have value when they bow before their very less than helpful God. They are tossed aside to burn.

Think through this basic point. If we have eternal souls, an existence that last for ever, never ending then the 3 score and 12 years in this natural world are an utterly insignificant fraction of our lives. Yet everything hinges on those years, our only purpose afterwards is dwell in worship of the creator or suffer for his wrath. All based on what we do during a time where “our finite minds can’t comprehend God’s plan.”

It’s a mug’s game.

As for the God became man to suffer in pain so he could one day remove evil. Really now, that’s just the jam tomorrow argument. One day oh boy one day Jesus is going to make things right. One day God will undo all the grief he dumped on creation because he was jealous of his creation discovering knowledge. (Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:). One day it will happen, so just sit there and deal with the pain he created.

It makes no sense in the context of a loving all powerful creator. It makes perfect sense as a story sold to certain men to keep the rest quiet and subservient with their bad lot in life.

“Care to provide your objective standard for what is good and what is improvement? Or is it only what you happen to like that is good and an improvement? And if so, why should we care about what you like over the next persons?”

That’s the basic point. we don’t have an objective standard beyond the one we as a group choose. No such thing exists. Morality is a creation of the human mind. But we can and have come a long way from the existence we had as hunter gathers. We have agreed to our subjective ideas on what is right. That is our achievement. We need no more underpinning than that we have decided that it is good for people to avoid suffering, to have freedoms, to not be murdered or robbed, to have protections from simply being abused by others.

We are special because we have chosen to be more than instinct. Not because some sky father made us in his image.

Option 3 does not resolve the dilemma. It is just saying – morality is what it is, and it is God. This solves nothing. This is just another way of stating that morals are absolute. Saying they are part of God’s character just says that God is moral.

None of this even addresses, let alone solves, why the morals that are part of God’s character are the right ones.

“Zach wrote: “Blue = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so lets all agree not to eat other!
Red = I don’t want to be eaten; everyone I know doesn’t want to be eaten, so I’ll get enough people on my team who agree to not each other so we can exploit and abuse the weaker team and eat them first so they can’t eat us.
Why blue over red? ”
Because that is just one tiny slice of a moral system. One point. When you start to combine that with other lines of moral reasoning, and try to make the whole construct work together, you can answer questions about why one approach may be better than the other.
Seriously – pick up a good book on moral philosophy. You should at least have a basic understanding of the centuries of scholarship you are so casually dismissing.

If your only defense of this is an appeal to some beyond us complex system (which you have not demonstrated to be true), and that it is beyond simple critique then I have nothing better to conclude that you have no counter to my critiques are not interested in countering them.
There may be answers to my critiques, but sadly you don’t appear to have them.

“Your understand appears to be as superficially and biased as the average creationist’s understanding of evolution.”

Trying to bolster your confidence in your view?

My critique isn’t complicated and I am not the first person to point out the problem. Since I am so biased and have such a poor understanding on this topic, I suggest reading some of Alvin Plantinga’s works. Or is anyone who doesn’t agree with you clearly biased and have a superficial understanding?

This is from my “etceterology” blog. It seems less tacky to copy it in whole than just link to it, and it’s not really that long:

Novella expresses a belief that is not uncommon among philosophers (at least since Hume): that all those who champion an objective morality must posit some “lawgiver” as its source. There have been a few notable exceptions: Ayn Rand attempted to derive a morality from “human nature”. More recently Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape makes a case for applying science to moral values. I agree with Novella and others that these attempts are not persuasive. But I remain both a moral realist and atheist, and I have a few ideas to add to the mess.

First let me clarify what I mean by moral realism. I reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion, emotion, custom, culture, or agreement. I believe, for example, that slavery is wrong, for everyone, at all times. It was wrong when America did it, it was wrong when the Bible approved of it, it’s wrong now. It didn’t become wrong when we outlawed it; we outlawed it because we realized that it was already wrong. I feel no obligation whatsoever to “respect” cultural traditions like Islamic misogyny or Hindu castes. Such things are wrong even if the slaves, women, and untouchables themselves tacitly or explicitly agree with them.

There are finer grades of meta-ethical positions that go by names like universalism, absolutism, nihilism, relativism, and so on. But they aren’t my subject today. Moral realism is only the claim that statements about what is right and wrong are statements about reality, not subjective opinion.

This position does indeed require that moral values come from some standard other than culture or law. When I say that one culture is better than another, or that our culture is better than it was in the past, or that laws against free speech like blasphemy and political dissent are bad laws, I imply that there exists something other than current culture and law against which I measure them. I don’t concede that this must be an intelligent lawgiver, but it must be something. Otherwise, what does “moral progress” even mean?

Novella says that he can’t imagine how any scientific investigation of nature can uncover objective values, and that values are therefore inherently subjective. To be honest, I can’t see how to do that either. But I reject his defeatism. I’m unwilling to elevate my ignorance to the level of natural law. Scientists over the centuries have made similar claims: when it was first known that the stars were trillions of miles away, scientists lamented that we would never be able to know what they were made of…and then we discovered spectroscopy. Science has a remarkable history of discovering the unknowable and doing the impossible. It might be unwise to count on such accomplishments in the future, but it would be equally unwise to bet against them.

I also think that ethical philosophers spend too much time talking about actions and motivations, and don’t sufficiently emphasize the relationship between actions (what we do), values (what we want), and knowledge (what we believe). If we want to determine if an action is ethical, we cannot ignore the fact that actions are not made in isolation: we act to accomplish goals that serve our values, and we act in ways that we believe will do that. Yes, it’s important to choose values well, and to have some means to judge competing values. But if our knowledge—something we believe about reality—is incorrect, we may do things that we mistakenly think support our values but that actually thwart them. Such actions may hurt other people. If we sincerely believe that attacking the symbol of American decadence will secure our place in heaven, we may pilot a jetliner into the World Trade Center. If we sincerely believe that witches are possessed by demons, we may subject them to exorcism or execution to save their souls. Good people, with what we (or their peers) would see as good values, will do these things with good intentions. Such actions are no less evil.

This has some important implications. It means that having accurate knowledge about reality is important regardless of your values. Whether you value liberty or obedience, wealth or austerity, altruism or selfishness, conformity or individuality, you can serve your goal only if your actions are informed by real knowledge of the world. Regardless of where you want to go, you can’t get there unless your map matches the territory. And since we have to acquire knowledge, it is critical that the methods we use to acquire it work. Methods of acquiring knowledge are what philosophers call epistemology.

Here is my proposed candidate for an absolute, objective, moral law:

“It is morally wrong to base your working knowledge on a demonstrably inferior epistemology.”

This is not a value; it is independent of one’s values. It is not a matter of personal choice or culture. It is not a commandment from on high. It is an unavoidable logical consequence of four facts of nature:

1. Our actions affect the world, including other people.
2. We base our actions upon our knowledge.
3. We acquire knowledge during our lifetimes.
4. Some methods of acquiring knowledge are better than others.

Of course, I am also assuming that such a thing as a moral law exists. If such a thing exists, I can’t imagine this not being one. And there is nothing subjective or relative about it.

Unfortunately, this law can’t be applied to every moral conundrum. I still can’t say slavery is wrong without bringing in some values. But I think a surprisingly large number of contentious moral and political issues of our time are not disagreements about values—they are disagreements about how to achieve those values. Conservatives and liberals alike want less gun violence in the world. They disagree about how to achieve that. This is a hard question, but it is not a question of values. It is a question about the nature of the world (including the nature of human psychology, rights, culture, violence, technology, and many other things). Science can be brought to bear on it, and real answers can be found.

Another objection to the idea of objective morality is that it makes moral progress impossible. This is certainly true of certain kinds of moral codes. If a single book, for example, is held to be the one source of moral wisdom, then moral progress does indeed become impossible. Books can’t change. I am a big fan of moral progress: anyone who longs for “simpler” times of the past just has a bad understanding of the past. There is more peace, prosperity, health, beauty, wisdom, and every other good thing in the world today than there has ever been at any time in the past.

But this objection does not apply to my idea of objective morality. First, since I don’t claim to know a priori what the objective moral values are, moral progress becomes the act of discovering them. Also, knowledge of the world increases with time. We, as a society, learn things and invent things. Therefore, our actions become better informed with time. Morals can change not only when values change (or are discovered), but also when knowledge changes. A world with safe and effective birth control and extensive knowledge of disease and psychology is very different from the world without those things that we had 1000 years ago. It follows that the moral import of an action such as pre-marital sex is very different now, even among those with values identical to those of our ancestors.

I admire Dr. Novella as a scientist, as a writer, and as an activist. I hope I can persuade him as a philosopher that morality is too important to give up the search for an objective, rational basis.

PS: Of course, we can and do still have standards. But if we mean by “objective” that we can have moral standards that are completely divorced from our beliefs and desires, then even if that were possible, who would want them?!!

Zach wrote: “If your only defense of this is an appeal to some beyond us complex system…”

Where are you even getting this, Zach. Now it seems you have descended into scoring cheap debating points.

I made a simple point. Just the desire not to be killed cannot distinguish your red/blue examples, but if you add other principles, like reciprocity, or questions about the proper extent of our circle of morality, then you can answer why it is better not to kill other people.

But your strategy is to just simplistically keep asking, why, how do you know. It’s a denialist strategy – just keep moving that bar and asking for more evidence or reasoning. Before we’re done I’ll have to write an entire philosophy of ethics textbook – or you can just read one from an actual philosopher.

Your responses also continue to be non sequiturs. You never address my actual point – that you can’t come up with valid moral reasoning based on a single principle. There are always multiple principles to consider.

My read of what you first wrote is that yours is a refinement and expansion of what has been hinted at or stated by others here. I find it immensely reasonable that some things could be considered self-evident, hence the objective side of morality and other things are fully subjective. It was an interesting write up.

To be “objective” it has to be true outside the context of mind(s), it doesn’t have to be universally applicable.

In this sense “killing and eating my son would be a crime” this is objectively true, even though there may be periods in history or places where it isn’t a crime, and there might be attenuating circumstance where it isn’t morally objectionable (although few).

I’m prepared to believe that as such there might be objective morality for humans as they are currently constituted, or for our society as currently constituted, I alas haven’t worked out what they are, but I think they are possible.

Massimo seems to make a similar claim. He compared ethics and mathematical logic at one point says mathematical truth is not based on empirical facts. However we mostly show interest in mathematical and logical systems that are congruent with empirical facts, Russell’s “natural logic”, systems where 1+1=2 (there are infinite numbers of mathematical systems when 1+1 is not 2 but we typically aren’t that interested in them, except perhaps in probability).

In his blog post he effectively asserts (the other way around) he is only interested in moral systems which conclude human female genital mutilation is immoral.

It might interest you to know that, in the Talmud, the Hebrew-Aramaic word that’s often used for “heretic” – and which is still in use today within Orthodox Jewish circles – is “apikorus”, derived from “Epicurus.”

At least I got a great laugh out of reading Zach’s response (way up above) with the standard trite and childish religious apologia I’ve heard a million times before. Except I probably shouldn’t say that – it’s a bit insulting to children, who wouldn’t buy it themselves lest they were already indoctrinated into it.

What strikes me the most disingenuous of all of Zach’s replies is that he keeps replying to an argument no one is making.

Time and time and time again he misses the point of the subjective morality argument. Every time someone tries to explain how and why subjective morality came to be in human society, Zach’s primary reply is that it must be false because it is not objective, or alternately he says it can’t be possible because objective morality is BETTER. Every time he says something like “how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE!” or the comparison of liking blue over red, or saying “What objective standard are you appealing to…” and “Do you have an objective standard on which to say his are the wrong ones?” All that translates to is: subjective morality can’t be possible because it’s not objective, or not as “just” as an lawgiver-based morality code. That is not the argument being discussed. It’s not which is better, it’s which is more likely to have occurred.

The arguments made by Novella et al is that morality certainly could have originated subjectively, and then they give many reasons why this is more likely than objective morality which has no verifiable source.

Maybe, Zach, instead of continuing to hammer that morality must have an objective origin because otherwise it would boil down to arbitrary feelings, how about embracing that it DID begin with arbitrary feelings? Even if it was originally as arbitrary as red vs blue?

You say that first premises came from a lawgiver. Isn’t it at least possible that the first premises were created arbitrarily by humans who just got lucky?

Can you at least grasp the concept that maybe the first premises were developed and discarded and re-developed and changed until humankind finally settled on something the majority thought worked? Even if, in your opinion, this is inferior to a lawgiven absolute objective morality, even if the first premises were decided by a majority that some minority objected to, isn’t it possible that morals began this way and developed by trial and error? Again, replying that this results in “why not choose red over blue” or “might makes right” is a straw man — that’s just arguing that objective morality is better. It’s not arguing against the possibility of subjective-originated morality.

Let’s create a hypothetical — let’s say there’s another planet, or another universe somewhere, and a civilization emerges. Is it possible that THAT civilization began with no objective lawgiver morals and created some working morals, just by evolving into beings that need to care about one another to survive as a civilization? Even if the first premises are not handed down objectively from a lawgiver, clearly the civilization can get lucky and happen to choose first premises that work. And if millions of civilizations in millions of planets/universes sprung up, statistically one of them could have gotten it right and survived. Why can’t that be us?

And if you still can’t grasp a universe that is outside the lawgiver’s purview, how about a computer simulation of the same thing? If I ran a billion computer simulations of societies that develop based on their own invented moral premises and used trial and error to develop them, won’t I come up with some working ones that resemble what we have on earth?

Please stop giving reasons why you think objective-based morality is better. Others have given good arguments here that subjectively originated morality is possible (and likely), which you’ve given no arguments to refute. All you’ve done is argue that it’s not as “good” as yours.

Once you come to realize that a civilization can emerge and form a moral code based on subjective first premises and then develop them into a workable moral structure from trial and error, then it comes down to which is more likely to have occurred here on earth.

“Do you have any earthly (or other) reason why I or anyone else should care about two consenting people or why they should be allowed to marry each other?”

Zach actually quoted my reasoning immediately before you wrote the above. Why quote something one clearly didn’t read? Here, again, is what I said:

“A real-world example of the problem created by (and for) those who subscribe to an “objective” morality is occurring now, regarding the rights of homosexual people to marry.
Clearly, as regards science, fairness, the principle of non-interference without justification, and equality of rights, this one is a no-brainer.”

That last sentence there, which Zach quoted without apparently reading it, contains the reasons Zach claim to want to know. Put even simpler, it goes like this:

1. Some homosexual people want to marry.
2. There is no reason to forbid them.
3. Therefore, they should be free to marry.

Zach’s objective morality claims otherwise, but posits no basis for it other than “God hates fags”.

Thereafter, Zach wrote:

“What standard are you appealing to, and can I please see it? I didn’t get this memo you are referring to.”

It’s Zach, not me, who claims that morality comes via memos. As to what “standard” I’m “appealing to”, I’m not sure that Zach’s question contains sufficient information to enable me to answer it.

But, I’ll try to respond. First, I repeat my point above: the reasons which lead me to my conclusion are listed in my words Zach quoted but did not read. Second, if by “standards” Zach means “generally agreed-upon baseline conduct for members of a civilised society”, I would simply note that my reasons Zach quoted without reading are an uncontroversial subset of those baseline rules.

As Zach’s inviolate revealed morality (“I command you to deny your gay relatives and neighbors what you yourself can have”) falls below the minimum standard of conduct for a member of a civilised society, it is understandable that Zach finds this all a little confusing.
.

“By saying this, I believe he is effectively making the same argument as Sam Harris, or possibly the same mistake.”

Which argument are you referring to? There has been an emphasis on their (Pigliucci and Harris) differences on this topic, but I’m not sure what specifically you mean by “same argument” in the above quote because it follows a link to a long blog post.

Rinse and repeat for the remaining verses. These points have been countered without a doubt numerous times. If you refuse to accept the answer because you are committed to your position than I cannot help you.

More like wipe and flush. It hasn’t been countered at all. Whenever a contradiction or immoral behavior of Yahweh is pointed out, the it’s-a-symbolic-passage or that’s-taken-out-of-context cards are played. IOW, the christian gets to pick and choose whatever interpretation he likes. The fact remains your sky fairy’s book demonstrates he’s a liar over and over and over again.

You need to go outside or something, you are obviously way to angry for this conversation.

You’ve an incredible knack in overestimating your abilities. Angry? Not even close. But I do feel a sense of pity for you. You’re an atheist stuck in a brainwashed theist’s body. Many of us were there once. Fortunately I grew out of it by my teens. That you keep harping back to how much you imagine you’re making others angry says much about your motives.

Zach:

Also, I will not be reading your posts in the future nor responding for the sake of your blood pressure.

My blood pressure is fine, but how would you know anything about it? Whoops. I forgot. You’ve got a personal line with a magical sky fairy.http://youtu.be/kLBDFe3mDtk

Of course, you won’t be reading my posts. You’ve said that three or four times so far, but it’s abundantly clear you don’t read anyone’s posts.

Do you have an objective standard on which to say his are the wrong ones?

Someone already knocked it out of the ball park but I’ll repeat the question because it highlights what you so much want to evade: Do you have an objective standard on which to say yahweh’s morals are the right ones?

You’ve touched on a concept that has been tacitly noted many times, and one I have been meaning to state outright for a while and keep forgetting. Namely, that yes, we advocates of this position actually realize that many (if not most) moral question actually are “red vs blue” in nature. Which is why we tend to be much more permissive of freedoms and require evidence that we shouldn’t be permissive in order to consider something immoral.

The case of gay marriage is an obvious one. We realize that the question of whom you choose to have sex with or marry is none of my business and is actually a “red vs blue” question. I prefer women, my friend Jeff prefers men. Others are bisexual or polyamorous. Who is to say my opinion is “right” or “better” than his (or theirs)? Nobody. Which is why I support him having absolutely equal rights to my own in every regard.

Now, if one was to hypothetically demonstrate that the children of gay couples were consistently harmed by being a product of that union then you might be able to make the case that it isn’t a “red vs blue” distinction and we may have a reason to consider it immoral or otherwise limit it. Of course, not only does no such evidence exist, but evidence precisely to the contrary does.

Non-Stamp Collector is awesome. He makes great videos. Have you seen Edward Current’s videos? If not, look him up as well. Darkmatter2525 is fantastic too, and very funny, but very NSFW and often extremely irreverent. And for a more serious, in depth, and typically very well thought out video GrapplingIgnorance never dissapoints.

Hey, guys. Me again. I wanted to post this quotation from the introduction to Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God,” which I’ve just picked up, since it says well what I tried to articulate earlier, about Philosophy, and why Sam Harris’ too-rude dismissal drives at something that is unfortunately true. It’s long, but excellent.

“Our values, our morals, our goals, our identities, who we are, where we are, and above all how we know any of these things, it all comes from our philosophy of life–whether we know it or not.

Since this makes philosophy fundamental to everything in our lives, it is odd that people give it so little attention. Philosophers are largely to blame. They have reduced their craft to the very thing it should not be: a jargonized verbal dance around largely useless minutiae. Philosophy is supposed to be the science of explaining to everyone the meaning and implications of what we say and think, aiding us all in understanding ourselves and the world. Yet philosophers have all but abandoned this calling, abandoned their only useful role in society. They have retreated behind ivory walls, talking over the head sof the uninitiated, and doing nothing useful for the everyman. So it is no surprise the general population has lost interest.”

I’ve checked out of this thread, because I think it’s going in circles (for some reason…) but I thought I’d check back in to share this. Carry on, gentlemen.

Though I believe Lee Daniel Crocker’s view is vastly superior to Steven’s, I still reject it’s strong roots in philosophical naturalism.

“Where are you even getting this, Zach. Now it seems you have descended into scoring cheap debating points.”

…. You just told me that I basically know nothing about philosophy… yet I’m the one scoring cheap shots? This isn’t a cheap shot, I think your argument is fallacious and have demonstrated the exact points without rebuttal.

“I made a simple point. Just the desire not to be killed cannot distinguish your red/blue examples, but if you add other principles, like reciprocity, or questions about the proper extent of our circle of morality, then you can answer why it is better not to kill other people.

Steven, all of these terms are essentially creating the same problem for you – assuming a morality from a few first principles which you can’t prove and admitted you can’t prove. And to make the matters worse, they ARE the very question we are looking to answer.

It’s like me asking what the purpose of football is. You respond with
To score goals – no Steven that is the game of football itself.
You respond, to win the Super Bowl – No Steven for that is an event in the NFL
You respond, to prevent the enemy team from scoring on your team – etc. etc.

You haven’t come a million miles to answering this basic question, you have assumed your answer from assuming these first principles, which are nothing more than the question itself. This is known as circular reasoning.

“But your strategy is to just simplistically keep asking, why, how do you know. It’s a denialist strategy – just keep moving that bar and asking for more evidence or reasoning. Before we’re done I’ll have to write an entire philosophy of ethics textbook – or you can just read one from an actual philosopher.”

This is a cop out answer. I am asking you a very basic question, and every time I do you appeal to it being “complex” and how I don’t understand philosophy. Well maybe so, but neither do you.

“By Zach’s own standard, all he has ‘proven’ so far is that morality does NOT exist,since he refuses to demonstrate his objective source,and doesn’t accept subjective sources of morality.”

Agreed. No morality makes more sense than Steven’s moral system which is based 100% on pontification. He says blue is better than red because him and some others like blue.

“Zach’s primary reply is that it must be false because it is not objective”

No my reply is that objective morality can ONLY be based on “might makes right”. Moral relativism is the only form of subjective morality that works. Steven doesn’t like that, so he keeps trying to say he believes in subjective morality while relying on first principles – which don’t solve the problem for him. They are un-provable assumptions that don’t save him from moral relativism.

“Every time he says something like “how does one determine morality . WELL BY MORALITY OF COURSE!” or the comparison of liking blue over red, or saying “What objective standard are you appealing to…” and “Do you have an objective standard on which to say his are the wrong ones?” All that translates to is: subjective morality can’t be possible because it’s not objective, or not as “just” as an lawgiver-based morality code. That is not the argument being discussed. It’s not which is better, it’s which is more likely to have occurred.”

No, Steven’s answer is the morality is determined by morality – or as he calls them first principles, same thing.

If morality is subjective it is based on values. Values are thing you like, I like, jack the ripper likes. So you then must decide which values are the better values. I value the color red, you value the color blue, Jack the ripper values the color black. So how do you determine which value is the one society “ought” to pick and use? I argue that you can’t, and must go with a might makes right approach if that is all the morality is. So slavery isn’t wrong unless it’s not got enough voters to pass it as wrong – same with rape, etc.

Now Steven can’t stomach that approach to subjective morality, so he says we must have something that fixes the problem of all moral truth claims being equal. So maybe there is something in logic we can use – but there’s a huge problem because logic can’t tell you that color preference is better. Steven then appeals to our individual desire to not be eaten – but this assumes that one ought to care about others desires to not be eaten, So unless he can demonstrate what exactly and how exactly he arrives at these first principles, his view is dead in the water.

“Maybe, Zach, instead of continuing to hammer that morality must have an objective origin because otherwise it would boil down to arbitrary feelings, how about embracing that it DID begin with arbitrary feelings? Even if it was originally as arbitrary as red vs blue?”

Evidence? You can’t prove that this is what happened, nor can you prove it is not merely arbitrary value preference – red vs blue. That’s Steven’s problem. His argument is circular.

“Can you at least grasp the concept that maybe the first premises were developed and discarded and re-developed and changed until humankind finally settled on something the majority thought worked?”

I can grasp it sure, but I reject it because it is not at all based in reality as we see it. Maybe we can eventually evolve and get to that point, but so far it hasn’t happened – hence why atrocities still occur. If we simply arrived at the same moral conclusion through evolution and there was no dissent it would be a universal truism, but it’s not even close nor does it appear to be getting closer, because getting closer would be a statement about an objective standard for what human morality “ought” to be.

“even if the first premises were decided by a majority that some minority objected to, isn’t it possible that morals began this way and developed by trial and error? Again, replying that this results in “why not choose red over blue” or “might makes right” is a straw man — that’s just arguing that objective morality is better. It’s not arguing against the possibility of subjective-originated morality.”

I’m not saying Steven’s view is objective morality, I’m saying that he only has two available options at this point: objective morality or moral relativism. Steven is trying to mix the two into some kind of moral Frankenstein that doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny.

“Let’s create a hypothetical — let’s say there’s another planet, or another universe somewhere, and a civilization emerges. Is it possible that THAT civilization began with no objective lawgiver morals and created some working morals, just by evolving into beings that need to care about one another to survive as a civilization? Even if the first premises are not handed down objectively from a lawgiver, clearly the civilization can get lucky and happen to choose first premises that work. And if millions of civilizations in millions of planets/universes sprung up, statistically one of them could have gotten it right and survived. Why can’t that be us?”

Yes, but what you are describing is moral relativism, not Steven’s view.
Steven desperately needs to find a way to justify his strong belief that rape is actually bad no matter if 99% of man states it’s good. If he dropped that desire he wouldn’t have such a hard time embracing moral relativism. But he can’t….

“Once you come to realize that a civilization can emerge and form a moral code based on subjective first premises and then develop them into a workable moral structure from trial and error, then it comes down to which is more likely to have occurred here on earth.”

I already realize this, but that would be moral relativism, not what Steven is asserting. And stop saying I am asserting objective morality. I believe morality must be objective if one wants to assert that rape is wrong no matter how many people say it is right. I never said morality couldn’t be subjectively based in moral relativism. That view works. Steven’s doesn’t.

Steven needs to realize that subjective morality can only be based on moral relativism. If he rejects that, he is then arguing for some sort of quasi-Frankenstein objective/subjective morality that is desperately trying to root itself in subjective morality. It doesn’t work.

Steven wrote: “But your strategy is to just simplistically keep asking, why, how do you know. It’s a denialist strategy – just keep moving that bar and asking for more evidence or reasoning. Before we’re done I’ll have to write an entire philosophy of ethics textbook – or you can just read one from an actual philosopher.”

Zach wrote: “This is a cop out answer. I am asking you a very basic question, and every time I do you appeal to it being “complex” and how I don’t understand philosophy. Well maybe so, but neither do you.”

Zach, this is exactly how young earth creationists argue with biologists. They ask “why,” and “how do you know that?” questions ad nauseum–and behave as though the biologist hasn’t made his case until he’s answered literally every possible question to the creationist’s satisfaction. But the creationist puts no consideration into any answer, he only listens hard enough to find any point that allows him to ask another question.

So while it’s *true* that you are “just asking questions,” you are asking questions that have answers–most of which you know or could come up with on your own if you thought about them; but maddeningly, you ask them as though they are rhetorical questions, or “gotcha” questions.

“you ask them as though they are rhetorical questions, or “gotcha” questions.”

That is honestly not my intent.

But people here demonize too quickly when someone doesn’t agree with them. Not saying you are.

Steven’s view is not criticized by only creationists… and to be honest calling that out is a distraction since you don’t actually know my views. Regardless, other philosophers find it broken and reject it for the same reasons.

“Steven’s view is not criticized by only creationists… and to be honest calling that out is a distraction since you don’t actually know my views. Regardless, other philosophers find it broken and reject it for the same reasons.”

I wasn’t calling you a creationist. I was saying your line of inquiry, while superficially reasonable, is unreasonable in the same way creationist grilling of biologists is. I was defending Steve’s characterisation of the circumstances–that it’s not reasonable for you to expect him to give what amounts to a full textbook on ethics before you’ll believe his position is reasonable.

On what basis do you argue against a philosophical position that has been the source of so many right answers and has never been proved wrong. Whereas supernaturalism has been proved wrong so many times and has never been the source of any right answers.

Every mystery ever solved turned out to be NOT magic. — Tim Minchin “Storm”

If morality is subjective it is based on values. Values are thing you like, I like, jack the ripper likes. So you then must decide which values are the better values. I value the color red, you value the color blue

That’s assuming that color preference and the the desire to kill carry the same weight in human cultural affairs. They don’t. And it’s assuming that we can just “decide” to ignore deep-seated evolutionary responses. We can’t.

Saying the existence of a Jack-the-Ripper means that human society can just choose to be psychopathically murderous is like saying the existence of a Robert Wadlow means humans can just choose to be taller.

There is something in between a cosmically ordained moral absolute and morality that is changed each morning like a clean shirt. It’s called biology. It’s called evolution. It’s called the responses programmed by 8+ million years of social development.

Religion and philosophy are both attempts to explain and map what biology and social development have instilled in us. While not cosmically absolute, the fundamental emotional responses that underpin human values are only slightly more “relative” from culture to culture and person to person than are skin color or facial features. Zach, your constant comparisons of fundamental human desires to arbitrary color preferences, and your treatment of any biologically-based values as completely discretionary, are just tedious strawmen.

Human morality evolved to its current state as humans evolved to their current state, driven by biological and social forces that shaped our cultures as they shaped our bodies and abilities. I know you “reject” the implications of such naturalism, but so what? I may reject atomic weapons but that has no effect on Einstein’s equation.

It is not even unlikely that a group of early, godless, hominids sat around, possibly after a fight, and laid out a series of mutually beneficial (if individually limiting) rules for the conduct of their proto-society.

To claim that that scenario is impossible in the absense of an un-evidenced Mighty Supernatural Law-giver, is absurd.

Claiming without reason or evidence that the likely is impossible, does not make the absurd true.

Nor the likely, false.

Zach can dance like a duck-on-a-hotplate all he likes, but there’s the rub.
.

He is indeed a remarkable master of jumping through logical hoops to try and explain away the problems that his belief in a mythological figure produces when he tries to look at the real world around him.

Your answer to my comments solidifies exactly what I said. You didn’t answer the question.

You said: “No, Steven’s answer is the morality is determined by morality – or as he calls them first principles, same thing. If morality is subjective it is based on values. Values are thing you like, I like, jack the ripper likes. ”

The above sentences define a huge mental block you have. Steven and everyone else has made it clear that a subjective first premise does not equate to completely subjective morality, or moral relativism as you call it.

If I decide to make a stew, I pick random ingredients and taste it, add some other ingredients as I see fit, maybe throw it out and start again with new stuff. In the end I get something I like. No one TOLD me what ingredients to start with, I just kept mixing it up until I was happy. Why do you have a mental block and always say that the subjective decision to pick random ingredients always means that I’ll end up with a stew that can never be delicious?

Something can start as subjective and turn into something useful. It’s so obvious but something in your brain just can’t grasp it.

You said: “Evidence? You can’t prove that this is what happened”.

I’m not trying to prove that it happened. I’m trying to prove that it’s possible, then we’ll discuss which scenario is more likely.

“I can grasp it sure, but I reject it because it is not at all based in reality as we see it.”

Aha! Where’s your evidence for this statement? Many posters have given long arguments about evolutionary pressures that could easily explain it. You reject it with no evidence.

“Yes, but what you are describing is moral relativism, not Steven’s view.”

Zach, how can you say this outright lie over and over? Re-read my “stew” analogy. It’s subjective origins followed by human development. That is not moral relativism, no matter how many times you say it.

I said: “Once you come to realize that a civilization can emerge and form a moral code based on subjective first premises and then develop them into a workable moral structure from trial and error, then it comes down to which is more likely to have occurred here on earth.”

You said “I already realize this, but that would be moral relativism, not what Steven is asserting.”

WOW! This is actually a big leap for you, Zach. You now admit that it is POSSIBLE that a civilization can emerge and form a moral code based on subjective first premises and then develop them into a workable moral structure. You may say “that’s not Steven’s assertion” but you’d be wrong. And it’s certainly not moral relativism. Human development enhanced and modified the premises, in the same way that you may believe human development took a lawgiver’s “thou shall not kill” and created an immense set of detailed laws on the subject, and influenced the debate on abortion. Humans had to start with something and then start creating the details, and the details are the current moral standards. No matter where the original idea came from, the result is moral structure. And humans creating the original set of premises is indeed one of the possibilities, as you just said you “realize”.

I think you just admitted that this is all possible. Now that we agree a civilization can arise this way, let’s change the discussion to which scenario is more likely. (1) That humans made their own initial decisions on moral premises and practiced trial and error to lead us to where we are today, or (2) that a lawgiver imparted this information to us in some way at the start. There’s been plenty of arguments to show the likeliness of the former.

NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF A LAWGIVER.

Wow, looks like we’re well on our way to another 500 comment posting. Few things go so far without going anywhere than religious apologetics. Honestly, I’m not sure why people are giving Zach the time of day. I really don’t know how many different ways it can be explained to him, or how many different ways he can dodge and shift his burden of proof, he doesn’t want to understand and he’s doing his level best not to.

It seems to me that people can only repeat themselves so many times before proving insanity by expecting different results. I guess he’s just trying to win by attrition, hoping to get the last word in, as if that somehow makes him the winner.

He’s not going to get it, because he doesn’t want to get it. It’s called motivated reasoning.

“NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF A LAWGIVER.”

This has been Zach’s turn from the beginning. He came here claiming absolute objective morals that can only be given by a law giver as the only possibility that morals exist. He has spent little time trying to demonstrate his claim like any honest, rational person would, but instead spent all his time trying to disprove the negative, mangling science and logic beyond recognition along the way.

It was clear long ago that he has no intention of doing that, nor did he ever.

No, you just missed his point, that’s all. What Steven meant is that he didn’t realise he would have to write a textbook before you would understand what he is saying.
Perhaps he should write that book and perhaps he should call it “Science, Philosophy and Morality For Dummies”

Zach wrote: “Steven, all of these terms are essentially creating the same problem for you – assuming a morality from a few first principles which you can’t prove and admitted you can’t prove. And to make the matters worse, they ARE the very question we are looking to answer.”

Zach – you keep returning to this straw man. I never said I can prove my first principles. The defense of moral philosophy is not based on the proof of first principles. It is very telling that you keep returning to this point, but never address my actual point, which is the refutation of your position you keep insisting does not exit.

Here it is AGAIN – Try to address this actual point:

While moral first principles cannot be proven (that’s why they are called first principles), they are reasonable, fairly universal, and they do flow from the very need for a moral system in the first place.

I have given several examples – such a the desire not to be killed, or recognition that a moral system cannot serve only you but must serve everyone to whom the moral system applies, and internal logical consistency.

You characterize these principles as the equivalent of preferring red to blue. I am saying this is a false equivalency. Blue vs red is a pure aesthetic choice. The principles above are rooted in deep human feelings and values that are fairly universal (to the point that disagreements are notable exceptions).

Further – such starting point values can be assessed based upon the moral philosophy that results from them. Is it consistent, practical (can the moral decisions actually be implemented), and does it meet the purpose of having a moral system. Yes – those purposes are themselves a point of discussion (the essence of the difference between consequentialism and virtue ethics).

The moral system that results is an imperfect human system, based on human values – but that is not equivalent to preferring red to blue for the reasons above.

Your position of equivalency between an aesthetic choice (red vs blue) and moral principles is what I am challenging. That position is not tenable, and does not even make basic sense. Yet it is the cornerstone of your criticism of moral philosophy. Your position is bankrupt, you just refuse to see it.

“If I decide to make a stew, I pick random ingredients and taste it, add some other ingredients as I see fit, maybe throw it out and start again with new stuff. In the end I get something I like. No one TOLD me what ingredients to start with, I just kept mixing it up until I was happy. Why do you have a mental block and always say that the subjective decision to pick random ingredients always means that I’ll end up with a stew that can never be delicious?”

Because delicious implies that you know what is actually delicious.

Secondly, you might make a stew you like, but there are several thousand stews that used different ingredients.

Now, if you are willing to say that all stews are a matter of personal taste and preference, I will grants that your view of morality is consistent – subjective moral relativism. But Steven won’t do that. Nor will you I am assuming, but Steven refuses to claim that all stews are equal, some are “better” than others. My question to Steven is on what basis does he claim one is superior to the other? If morality is subjective he doesn’t get to do that. It’s a very obvious, yet simple, mistake.
The problem is the masses think me pointing this out means I am saying, “THARS A GOD YUP YUP YUP!!!” I’m not asserting that. I believe that sure, but I’m not trying to prove that as something you all should adopt. I am just saying, Steven’s view is broken. Either accept moral relativism or don’t, because this frankstein project is doomed for failure.

“Something can start as subjective and turn into something useful. It’s so obvious but something in your brain just can’t grasp it.”

Can color preferences be useful? Sure I guess, they can help me decide what colors to paint my house. But the second I say it is useful beyond that and other people “ought” to like my favorite colors, then you are back to square one – why “ought” they to like the things I like (like consensual love over rape). If you say that harm is bad, you are back to square one. You don’t get to say that harm is bad because you have nothing to base on that on other than “I like this” or “I don’t like this”. Remember, morality is subjective based on values, not a standard of actual right and actual wrong. So if a society decides that rape is cool, or slavery is best, it is best – and you can only say you personally don’t care for those actions.

““I can grasp it sure, but I reject it because it is not at all based in reality as we see it.”
Aha! Where’s your evidence for this statement? Many posters have given long arguments about evolutionary pressures that could easily explain it. You reject it with no evidence.”

Because today mankind has very different ideas of what is right and wrong. Your model can only explain a moral relative system.

““Yes, but what you are describing is moral relativism, not Steven’s view.”

Zach, how can you say this outright lie over and over? Re-read my “stew” analogy. It’s subjective origins followed by human development. That is not moral relativism, no matter how many times you say it.
I said: “Once you come to realize that a civilization can emerge and form a moral code based on subjective first premises and then develop them into a workable moral structure from trial and error, then it comes down to which is more likely to have occurred here on earth.”

Ok. So which moral system is the one that is the one that we should go with?

a. Slavery is bad
b. Slavery is good

Because I hate to break it to you, evolution didn’t decide that one for us.

1. Love is better than hate
2. Peace is better than violence
3. Cooperation is better than isolation

From those he then applies objective applications to the rest of the moral situations to figure it out – easy enough right.

Jack the Ripper’s stew
Starting ingredients (first principles) based of things John likes.

1. Hate is better than love.
2. Violence is better than peace.
3. Isolation is better than cooperation.

Jack then applies objective applications to the rest of the moral situations to figure it out – easy enough right.

So which stew is the right one? The moral relativist says they are both right depending on which one society thinks tastes better.

You, and Steven, refuse to accept that conclusion and go back to arguing that I should somehow accept that harm is bad and build a working moral system based off that.

Jack the ripper tells me that I shouldn’t listen to you and I should realize harming certain people is better, and then from that build a working moral system based off that – the strong taking advantage of the weak, etc. etc.

Why is your view better than his? You can’t say it is because if morality is truly subjective, then we are talking color preferences not objective realities – For example, we can’t say that doesn’t matter what Jack the Ripper thinks, rape is bad the end good sir! We can only say we don’t happen to like that ingredient in our stew.

So then which stew wins the day? The one that can get the biggest guns/most people on it’s team, etc. etc.

Moral relativism.

“I think you just admitted that this is all possible. Now that we agree a civilization can arise this way, let’s change the discussion to which scenario is more likely. (1) That humans made their own initial decisions on moral premises and practiced trial and error to lead us to where we are today, There’s been plenty of arguments to show the likeliness of the former.”

I never denied this as “possible”… I did say that it can only lead to moral relativism. The idea that our morality collected into one bigger unified river from smaller streams over time is false, maybe it will eventually get there, but it will only be based off moral relativism if it does. Because you can’t say which of the streams are the wrong one, because they are based on values (which ingredients you like in the stew). Man doesn’t even come close to agreeing on which values are the best, and even if 99% of them did, you are still working with moral relativism because your basis for which ingredients (first principles) are decided on values – what you like – i.e. color preferences.

“NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF A LAWGIVER.”

I’m not asserting that, so I’m good. I am asserting that morality to be subjective can only be relative (a notion none here seem willing to swallow), or morality must be objectively rooted in either naturalism or supernaturalism, or morality does not exist and we have no free will. This Frankenstein project of Steven’s is nonsensical.

“Zach – you keep returning to this straw man. I never said I can prove my first principles. The defense of moral philosophy is not based on the proof of first principles. It is very telling that you keep returning to this point, but never address my actual point, which is the refutation of your position you keep insisting does not exit.”

Everyone please take note that he says first principles are not based on proof – this is important.

Now, to address your actual point.

“Here it is AGAIN – Try to address this actual point:
While moral first principles cannot be proven (that’s why they are called first principles), they are reasonable, fairly universal, and they do flow from the very need for a moral system in the first place.”

1. Reasonable to who? And so what? That still doesn’t save you from moral relativism. You are relying on values that people assign (I like white, because black is too hot to wear in the sun, so we should all wear black, reasonable right?)

2. Where, how, why did you conclude there is a need for a moral system? I think I missed that point. Lion’s don’t need one, why do we? But even if I grant that to you, it still doesn’t tell us what subjective moral system is the one we should go with – you can only rely on popular vote, which puts you into the moral relativist camp since your morality is based on values (i.e. color preference).

“I have given several examples – such a the desire not to be killed, or recognition that a moral system cannot serve only you but must serve everyone to whom the moral system applies, and internal logical consistency.”

Steven, are you kidding me with this? You said you can’t prove first principles are here you are trying to do just that.

You are assuming that all people care about OTHER’S desire to not be killed. Well, news flash Steven, that’s not the case.

You are assuming that I should care about a system that benefits everyone equally. How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? I thought we were talking about subjective values… You seem to be appealing to some objective truth in which I “ought” to care about how decisions effect people outside my tribe… Well too bad Steven, many people could care less about people outside their tribe, so you are back to square one or embracing moral relativism.

“You characterize these principles as the equivalent of preferring red to blue. I am saying this is a false equivalency. Blue vs red is a pure aesthetic choice. The principles above are rooted in deep human feelings and values that are fairly universal (to the point that disagreements are notable exceptions).”

Steven… the same thing goes for hate, murder, etc. Those are also rooted in deep human feeling, values, etc. What reality are you appealing to when you think humanity is some peaceful place where we all want to get along by using the same moral system? How do you determine which feelings should be encouraged and which discouraged?

Universal doesn’t matter either, unless you are going with a might makes right argument, which again, heads you into the direction of moral relativism.

“Further – such starting point values can be assessed based upon the moral philosophy that results from them. Is it consistent, practical (can the moral decisions actually be implemented), and does it meet the purpose of having a moral system. Yes – those purposes are themselves a point of discussion (the essence of the difference between consequentialism and virtue ethics).”

Circular reasoning.

“The moral system that results is an imperfect human system, based on human values – but that is not equivalent to preferring red to blue for the reasons above.”

Saying this doesn’t make it true. You are still 100% reliant on preferences. Go embrace moral relativism so your subjective view of morality isn’t rooted in nonsense.

“Your position of equivalency between an aesthetic choice (red vs blue) and moral principles is what I am challenging. That position is not tenable, and does not even make basic sense. Yet it is the cornerstone of your criticism of moral philosophy. Your position is bankrupt, you just refuse to see it.”

If you are really interested in showing me to be wrong. Go through my previous critiques and points word for word and respond exactly with what I have pointed out. Steven, I have pointed out the same problem that has gone completely unaddressed throughout this entire conversation. You keep hitting the same points, in which I critique, and then you move on and never address my point I brought up.

1. Universal doesn’t matter – even if it was true. Unless you believe might makes right.

2. People having a desire to not be killed does not at all imply I should not kill others – animals function exactly the same way yet you don’t believe they have morality like we do.

3. The idea that a moral system cannot serve only you but must serve everyone to whom the moral system is rooted 100% in preference – red is better than blue. If it’s not, and you have some empirical data to demonstrate your notion, I’d love to hear it.

4. Deep human feelings and values have a broad range involving both malice and virtue – harm and help. So on what basis do you decide which one to pick? Remember, this is based on values.

Watch the dance Steven is doing. He says morality is subjective but then tries to argue that it is not relative. He says that it is not relative because of first principles (ideas that interpret the rest of morality). Yet when you ask him why his first principles are better than the next persons he gives a web of circular logic. It goes .

1. People have a desire to not be killed so we should agree not to kill each other. I ask how he concluded that I should care about others lives and not my own/families/tribe?

So Steven moves on

2. a moral system must serve everyone not just yourself? I ask why? Why should I not manipulate the system so my tribe flourishes off the oppression of the weak?

So Steven moves on

3. Steven then says that we all have human feelings and values and that we should be able to be reasonable (whatever that means in a subjective moral system) and agree that we should build a moral system that encourages human “good” (whatever that means in a subjective moral system) feelings. So I ask on what basis does he determine what feelings to promote, and why I should care about other people’s feelings and not just mine/my families/my tribes?

So Steven moves on

4. He then says that we can draw from first principles that are pretty universal (whatever that means or matters in a subjective moral system). I ask if this is a might makes right suggestion in which Steven rejects, but doesn’t defend.

So Steven moves on.

And there we have it. Steven never has to address each claim on it’s own because they are all tied together in a web of circular reasoning. Anytime I point out the dilemma in one of his points, it doesn’t matter because he can immediately bounce to the next point that also has a dilemma. So Steven never sees that his entire system of subjective morality is based on circular reasoning.

For morality to be subjective it must be relative – just like with colors.

I highly doubt you will engage these very specific points with anything other than more generalized statements of how philosophy is much bigger than all of this and how I need to go educate myself, but I guess I can hope.

So if a society decides that rape is cool, or slavery is best, it is best – and you can only say you personally don’t care for those actions.

Society can TRY, just as they can TRY to decide that everyone should have green skin. But changing the underlying evolved values is only slightly easier than changing our skin color.

So your constant reduction of these fundamental values to just simple “choice” is a recurring, unmitigated failure.

How much control do you personally have over how tall you are, Zach? Very little.
Does that mean that human height is an objective universal absolute? No
Has the bell curve of human height changed over the centuries? Yes

Oh my God!!! It’s Human Height Relativism! The center does not hold!!

So by Zach’s repetitive refrain, a person or group who decides to be taller can just do so without restriction, and it will all be chaos because there’s no objective authority mandating “proper” human height.

Stop trying to semantically box people in with your Playskool definition of “relative”, Zach.

Is this the point where you put on your Artful Dodger act and tell me to go read Plantinga?

“How much control do you personally have over how tall you are, Zach? Very little.
Does that mean that human height is an objective universal absolute? No
Has the bell curve of human height changed over the centuries? Yes
Oh my God!!! It’s Human Height Relativism! The center does not hold!!
So by Zach’s repetitive refrain, a person or group who decides to be taller can just do so without restriction, and it will all be chaos because there’s no objective authority mandating “proper” human height.
Stop trying to semantically box people in with your Playskool definition of “relative”, Zach.
Is this the point where you put on your Artful Dodger act and tell me to go read Plantinga?”

“Stop trying to semantically box people in with your Playskool definition of “relative”, Zach.”

The definition of moral relativism is pretty straight forward. If you don’t like the definition and believe another one is better, let’s have it.

“The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.”

“1. People have a desire to not be killed so we should agree not to kill each other. I ask how he concluded that I should care about others lives and not my own/families/tribe?”

Non sequitur. The point is that if people in general desire not to be killed, I can achieve my goal of not being killed by respecting the rights of other people not to be killed in exchange for them respecting my right not to be killed – the principle of reciprocity.

The problem with Zach’s reasoning is that he wants me to justify not killing others based solely on my desire not to be killed. Whenever I try to introduce the other ethical principles that would be necessary to reach any specific conclusion, he cries fowl, as if I am trying to dodge the question.

Now Zach will probably bring up some other irrelevant objection that would require the introduction of another ethical principle to address, and then he will accuse be of dodging some more.

“2. a moral system must serve everyone not just yourself? I ask why? Why should I not manipulate the system so my tribe flourishes off the oppression of the weak?”

See above. How can I get others to behave morally toward me if I don’t behave morally toward them? History shows the weak will eventually rebel, so we can add to the criteria of a workable moral system that it is stable over time.

Should moral systems only apply to “my tribe” – wherever I choose to draw the line? This is actually a complex question (sorry for the complexity, Zach, I know how that irritates you). The more fundamental the moral principles, like respect for life and the dignity of every person, I think they do need to be universally applied to work. When you start to drill down to details, like the balance of freedom vs security, and individuality vs the collective – then cultural differences play a larger role.

There is also the practical issue of warring tribes. Getting different “tribes” to agree on some basic morals would tend to promote peace, which also reduces the chance of being killed.

“3. Steven then says that we all have human feelings and values and that we should be able to be reasonable (whatever that means in a subjective moral system) and agree that we should build a moral system that encourages human “good” (whatever that means in a subjective moral system) feelings. So I ask on what basis does he determine what feelings to promote, and why I should care about other people’s feelings and not just mine/my families/my tribes?”

Again – see above. Also – already answered. What feelings to promote – how about those that are most universal. If 99% of humans do not want to be killed, isn’t that a reasonable basis for a moral system that protects everyone’s right not to be killed? Zach characterizes this as the argument from popularity, or “might makes right,” which is absurd on its face. I guess it is the might of the 99.9% to impose their will not to be killed on the 0.1% who want to be killed.

Zach routine confuses this with the desire to kill other people. But people who want to kill other people (pschopaths aside) generally also don’t want to be killed themselves, and perhaps can be convinced that the best way not to be killed is to no try to kill others. Also, people who want to kill generally do so for ideological reasons, not because they don’t want to be killed or even because they don’t understand that killing is bad. They just have other moral feelings that trump the notion that killing is bad. Perhaps those ideological or moral issues should be explored.

“4. He then says that we can draw from first principles that are pretty universal (whatever that means or matters in a subjective moral system). I ask if this is a might makes right suggestion in which Steven rejects, but doesn’t defend.”

See above. “Whatever that means”- um – universality means, how many people agree with this. Most people do not want to be killed. Are you contesting this? You don’t think this is a reasonable basis for a moral system? You think not wanting to be killed is equal to liking blue rather than red?

Also – universality and “might makes right” are not the same thing. The “mighty” can be in the minority, and not all majorities rule by might. Majorities may rule by consent. And further, when you get to things like the desire not to be killed, we are not just talking about a majority, we are talking about everyone with few exceptions.

Do you see how this all ties together? You keep portraying this as a vast web of circular reasoning, but rather it is a moral “system” – it is self-referential (in order to be logically consistent).

Again – the bottom line is that I think (as do most philosophers) there are some basic values that are a reasonable starting point for a moral system – and most people think they are. You try to equate this to a simple aesthetic choice. You also confuse this with moral relativism.

This is partly due to the fact that you are stubbornly sticking to black and white false dichotomies, when in reality the system and the arguments for it are complex and nuanced.

Are you still going to say now that I haven’t addressed our points? Everything I said above I have said many times, as have others. You just are not listening.

Maybe it’s time to toss in some other morality options since the philosophy seems to be fairly wide open, especially as one narrows the definitions.

Michael Hopfenspirger (posted above) put forth moral realism, which, on its face points toward self-evident facts (I think Sam Harris is doing the same thing), which proposes the existence of both objective and subjective truths. Not to speak for Dr. Novella, but his position seems to be closer to that than either of the other two options under discussion.

Some of the arguments bear on the limits of current knowledge. Sam points to potential evidence for his argument being found in neuroscience. We have someone well-versed in that very subject.

I’m not finding much satisfaction in the arguments “objective morality, not objective morality” or “objective morality v subjective morality”.

Having looked behind the curtain (okay, some wikis and some stanford.edu and many others, my library is a bit underpopulated), philosophical and logical arguments end up in a draw, more or less, way too often. I read somewhere recently that there is an element of dissatisfaction with philosophers these days as being viewed as having gotten so caught up in the minutia that they are in danger of rendering themselves not relevant in many discussions. And laws of logic seem to be used in places where they don’t apply.

Are you still going to say now that I haven’t addressed our points? Everything I said above I have said many times, as have others. You just are not listening.

Of course he is Dr. Novella. There were a few times I had a glimmer of hope he might finally understand a bit, but every time that happens he doubles down and doubles down again.

I have still been learning though – about how the mind of such a person works. It is fascinating really to see it in real time and start to suss out the fundamental errors in thinking and the necessity he has to dogmatically stick to a few points at all costs.

The most ironic thing of it all is that the very processes he argues can’t exist and cannot be the basis for a system or morality are exactly what are happening at this very moment in history and rendering his moral system (after all, it is a moral system, just a very bad one that inevitably leads to inconsistencies and must rely on logical fallacy to exist) obsolete. The answer to his repeated (and incredibly childish) question of “how do we decide which moral is ‘better’” is being answered on a global scale and the amazingly rapid changes we see are a product of both how much better the system we advocate is and the instantaneous availability of information in a global community. Just look at Colorado and Washington legalizing gay marriage, along with the other states that already have. And more and more will come. Suddenly we went from “gay marriage is bad, evil, morally abject” to realizing it isn’t.

Heck, even my own mother realized this on her own and surprised me with it. She was of the “I like the gays, but they shouldn’t get married camp” for years (purely a cultural, not religious thing) and then one day I came home for Christmas and she flat out said she realized how stupid an argument it was.

Folks like Zach are rapidly going to be anachronisms. And for that I am happy.

Once again, Zach, you have dodged the question and instead given the same old spiel.

You continue to make this insane leap that “humans decided on first premises” must result in a completely relativistic moral society, where rape and love are the same. You’ve given no evidence that this would be the case. It’s just something you keep repeating over and over without evidence.

Once first premises are in place, whether they come objectively from a lawgiver or created by humans, non-relativistic human morality can develop. It doesn’t matter where the first premises came from came from so long as humankind embraced them. And of course a full 100% didn’t have to agree, in fact will never agree, and sure some embrace bad premises, it doesn’t matter. The fact is enough critical mass of humankind embraced a certain set of premises and therefore that’s what we have here on earth.

Once we agree on this, which I think you almost do, then it comes down to which is more likely.

What if humans invented first premises but humankind generally agreed they came from lawgiver, even if they didn’t? This is actually the most likely scenario. You can’t possibly think that THIS scenario would result in moral relativism? It’s the same thing as having a lawgiver, as far as early humans were concerned.

But please, stop replying with examples on how humans COULD have started with a Jack the Ripper set of first premises. It says nothing about the likely source of morality in our culture that we have now.

“Understood.
But I didn’t ask for a full textbook. I asked for answers to VERY specific questions. Questions he could not address.”

Here is a perfect example of how you are failing to engage honestly in this discussion.

I describe how you ask easy-to-answer questions as though they are damning questions that refute the other’s position. When the other responds by answering your easy, obvious question, you just ask a similar question about his answer, and so it goes and so it goes.

You reply by saying it isn’t your intention–I’m glad to hear it. Note that you don’t object, here, to my characterization of the history of the discussion as one in which you asked questions, they get answered, then you ask another question about the answer.

Instead, you object to my analogy of arguing with creationists (saying it is a distraction–not an ad hominem, as I’d worried you would take it). I reply that it was absolutely relevant, because I was describing *how* the argument was progressing, not your views–how the repetition of “why?”, and “how do you know?” would require a full textbook to answer since you seem committed to the most uncharitable “I refuse to understand this until you explain it to me explicitly” approach.

You reply that you didn’t ask for a textbook (I didn’t say that you did, I said you expect WHAT AMOUNTS TO a full textbook), and that you’ve asked *very specific questions* that he couldn’t address.

But this is both nonsense and irrelevant. Yes, you’ve asked very specific questions. But they are very specific questions that have been answered–in most cases more than once. And the need for a textbook is in answer to both the *number* and *kind* of questions you’ve asked.

So the fact you replied in this way–objecting that your questions have been very specific–shows that you were ignoring the context and content of the reply to raise some objection–any objection–even one which a moments consideration of what had been said only a few sentences prior–would have answered.

When someone objects with “very simple questions” which show that he’s taking each post as a hermetically sealed, isolated argument, which must stand or fall on its own, isolated merit–as you’ve done here repeatedly, that person is just stubbornly pushing the discussion one post further–a more literal than usual example of moving the goal post.

Have been following this in a somewhat cursory fashion, but something stands out to me: Zack’s reasoning lacks the nuance that is necessary in such debates. He makes absolute propositions – and there seems to be a lot more noise than signal because of this. My brief read is that he is proposing that objective and subjective morality are mutually exclusive, a proposition that inherently seems to ignore a lot of science and history. There are some things that are mutually exclusive, but they are usually very elementary concepts, such as with a triangle, if angles A&B=120, C cannot be anything but 60. But more complex concepts, even free will vs. determinism, cannot be explained entirely by one or another position. For example, while people have the ability to make choices in their lives (free will), they are constrained, to various degrees, by their biology/neurology/environment/etc (determinism). The individual with a tic disorder can freely choose to go to the coffee shop, but drinking coffee may then lead them to be more likely to exhibit tics (as neurologically, caffeine impacts the dompaminergic system; tics are provided as a general example of determinism – as the individual has no control over them). This is a very basic example – but the point is that arguing in absolutes ignores nuances that are very important to consider in an explanatory model (and without such, you are left with a model that is insufficient).

The whole of human history can be seen as a negotiation between individuals and society (tribes) as to what rules we should live by. It is obvious that there has never been any universal (100%) criteria for these rules,but it is also obvious that there are recurring themes that nearly everyone agrees on,if for no other reason than they benefit the whole,as well as the individual. If there were some absolute moral standard,then none of this negotiation would have been needed.It would have been self evident from the start.Instead,we had to find that common ground through trial and error,which continues still,even today.

“Non sequitur. The point is that if people in general desire not to be killed, I can achieve my goal of not being killed by respecting the rights of other people not to be killed in exchange for them respecting my right not to be killed – the principle of reciprocity.”

Correct! You could achieve this goal by respecting the rights (whatever those are in a subjective moral system) of other people and make an agreement that you won’t kill each other.

Here is your problem though. This only works if everyone does this, but however, everyone does not do this. Not everyone will agree to do this. What makes matters worse, is everyone could say to hell with your view of reciprocity, I’m going to ensure my safety by ruling over the others by might. You must admit that both views are valid ways of ensuring one’s desire to not be killed.
- the second you say that I should care about someone else’s desire to not be killed, you are in a “says who” or a “based on what” situation – in which your value of red over blue is all you can fall back on. If they don’t like your value (blue), then you are out of luck. If the majority decide they don’t like your value (blue), then you are out of luck.

“The problem with Zach’s reasoning is that he wants me to justify not killing others based solely on my desire not to be killed. Whenever I try to introduce the other ethical principles that would be necessary to reach any specific conclusion, he cries fowl, as if I am trying to dodge the question.”

Steven this is false. Look, I understand that some system are complex, I get that. I am not asking you to give me a 1 sentence explanation for your system, I asking “so what” about your different points. I understand that you are trying to say that each one itself doesn’t do it, but what you don’t get is that all of them together don’t do what you want them to do either – make a defensible moral system.

What you are doing is everytime I point out that a specific cog in your wheel doesn’t actually fit into the wheel as you think, you immediately shift to another point, which also doesn’t do what you want it to. When I then conclude that all of your cog’s don’t fit the wheel, you claim I am making a straw man of your argument. No Steven, what you don’t realize is that the views you take in philosophy have a domino effect, you can’t just pick and chose which ones to place where and ignore the irreconcilable differences. Well, you can, but that’s call bad philosophy, which is what your view is.

“See above. How can I get others to behave morally toward me if I don’t behave morally toward them? History shows the weak will eventually rebel, so we can add to the criteria of a workable moral system that it is stable over time.”

Power, authority, violence, oppression… those all have worked throughout history.

Also, if you want to rely on history as your weapon that sword slices both ways. There are countless examples where people tried to rely on “I will be nice to you if you are nice to me” and they got dominated.

“Should moral systems only apply to “my tribe” – wherever I choose to draw the line? This is actually a complex question (sorry for the complexity, Zach, I know how that irritates you).”

Actually I like complexity. What I don’t like is your cop out to complexity that you appeal to only as a means of avoiding direct questions.

“The more fundamental the moral principles, like respect for life and the dignity of every person, I think they do need to be universally applied to work. When you start to drill down to details, like the balance of freedom vs security, and individuality vs the collective – then cultural differences play a larger role.
There is also the practical issue of warring tribes. Getting different “tribes” to agree on some basic morals would tend to promote peace, which also reduces the chance of being killed.”

This doesn’t even come within a million miles of addressing my point.

1. What is a fundamental principles? How do you decide which ones are fundamental? Is not that not assuming the answer to the very question we are asking, “How does one determine morality?”

All this talk about drilling down some details? How did you do that? From assuming fundamental principles? Where did you get those from?

2. Why is peace the objective – see my first point. Each point you makes relies on another point to be true, but you can’t even get off the ground because your entire view is circular. Each point can’t be true unless one of the others is true, and that leaves the gaping problem of where to start? Which point is rooted in truth and not assumptions?
Circular to the core.

“Again – see above. Also – already answered. What feelings to promote – how about those that are most universal. If 99% of humans do not want to be killed, isn’t that a reasonable basis for a moral system that protects everyone’s right not to be killed? Zach characterizes this as the argument from popularity, or “might makes right,” which is absurd on its face. I guess it is the might of the 99.9% to impose their will not to be killed on the 0.1% who want to be killed.”

3. This is easily dismantled.
a. humans not wanting to be killed does not at all in anyway shape or form suggest that I should also then not want to kill other humans to protect myself, make my life better, etc. etc. You are leaping to your conclusion.
b. For this to be true, then it must also be true that if 99% of humans decide to oppress the 1% then that is a reasonable basis for a moral system.
You are making a might makes right – popular vote determines what it is right argument – again, one of the pillars of moral relativism.

“Zach routine confuses this with the desire to kill other people. But people who want to kill other people (pschopaths aside) generally also don’t want to be killed themselves, and perhaps can be convinced that the best way not to be killed is to no try to kill others. Also, people who want to kill generally do so for ideological reasons, not because they don’t want to be killed or even because they don’t understand that killing is bad. They just have other moral feelings that trump the notion that killing is bad. Perhaps those ideological or moral issues should be explored.”

I don’t even know what this is suppose to be…

Perhaps… perhaps not. Hence the violence in the world.

People typically kill or abuse others to increase their own power, , pride, possessions, etc. So what?

What do you think this paragraph is accomplishing for your view…? Because it’s not touching anything I brought up. You still “feel” killing is bad. That’s all you have – red is better than blue. Cool, so what? Says you! And why should I care about what you think if I happen to be the one with the power to abuse?

“See above. “Whatever that means”- um – universality means, how many people agree with this. Most people do not want to be killed. Are you contesting this? You don’t think this is a reasonable basis for a moral system? You think not wanting to be killed is equal to liking blue rather than red?”

No, because it’s majority rule, and if the majority decides slavery is alright, guess what you get… SLAVERY.

“Also – universality and “might makes right” are not the same thing. The “mighty” can be in the minority, and not all majorities rule by might. Majorities may rule by consent. And further, when you get to things like the desire not to be killed, we are not just talking about a majority, we are talking about everyone with few exceptions.”

First off, again, this isn’t defending anything. All of this can happen, but the opposite could happen too, so why A over B? You can only respond with, “because A is what I like more and you should too.”
You can rely on other reasons, but since they are rooted in subjective values you can never turn the frog into a prince, they will remain subjective and nothing more than color preferences.
The mighty IS the majority – they have the power to decide what is what. The majority might be peace lovers or war mongers, either one is the right one by your definition of what determines morality. You can continue to fight it, but that’s where you end up once you deal with this stuff rationally and honestly.

“Do you see how this all ties together? You keep portraying this as a vast web of circular reasoning, but rather it is a moral “system” – it is self-referential (in order to be logically consistent).”

You haven’t even come close to tying it all together, sorry. It’s circular and you don’t even realize it. I’m not sure what else to tell you. You are emotionally committed to your position.

“Again – the bottom line is that I think (as do most philosophers) there are some basic values that are a reasonable starting point for a moral system – and most people think they are. You try to equate this to a simple aesthetic choice. You also confuse this with moral relativism.”

Each of your first principles are assumed, unprovable, and rely completely on the next one. The only way your system gets off the ground is by asserting that “THESE SUJECTIVE PRINCIPLES” are the right ones no matter what anyone else says – which pulls out of the subjective position, which then requires you to provide evidence for these subjective first principles, which ended up being an appeal to objective first principles all along.

“This is partly due to the fact that you are stubbornly sticking to black and white false dichotomies, when in reality the system and the arguments for it are complex and nuanced.
Are you still going to say now that I haven’t addressed our points? Everything I said above I have said many times, as have others. You just are not listening.”

One thing is for sure, morality may be complex and require some explanation to make sense of it, but you don’t understand your own view. It is held together loosely at best, and based on circular logic. Chalk this up to me being too “black and white” or not understanding a complexity, but what circular logic is circular. If you can’t see that I cannot help you. Go read some non-Christian philosophers who agree with me since you and many in the crowd here are so prejudice against Christians that you can’t even listen to their critique of your views without getting all defensive and flapping your arms around whaling against the idea of a God – which I never tried to prove; I only pointed ou the complete failure in your circular system of logic.

You addressed my points Steven, thank you. It is 100% circular logic, and I’m sad that you don’t/can’t/won’t realize it. And the masses here who don’t know any better and follow you because you are a “scientist” don’t have any power to make your view rational. But to be fair, you don’t have another choice. If you drop this system what are you left with? I guess it makes sense why you have such an emotional commitment to this broken Frankenstein project you call “subjective morality”.

It’s clear from Zach’s very childish and simplistic notions of science, logic, and reason that he lacks the very fundamentals to understand how the complex systems we are discussing work. This stems from an ancient belief system that, for one, comes from a culture who also lacked the understanding of these complex systems, and for another, actively discourages true seeking of knowledge in this subject that may contradict that belief system, instead requiring deference to an ancient book and the leaders who are proponents of that book.

This leads to a high level of ignorance and cognitive dissonance required to maintain that belief system in the face of an ever growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts it.

He makes absolute propositions – and there seems to be a lot more noise than signal because of this.

This is something I’ve been maintaining, that Zach came to this blog and “threw down the gauntlet”, that he has made a very specific and overt claim, that absolute objective morality exists, is the only morality to exist, and it necessarily requires a law giver. However, instead of displaying honesty by (attempting to go about) satisfying his burden of proof, he instead attacks the incredulity of everyone else. He has been trying to prove his position by trying to prove that absolute morality doesn’t not exist in what amounts to disproving a negative (of course, this is a false dichotomy from the start).

That his arguments are mired in scientific illiteracy and the misuse of logic goes to illustrate his ignorance on the subjects. That he continues to cling to that ignorance in spite of being corrected numerous times by people far more educated than he is on the subject goes to illustrate his ideologically driven cognitive dissonance.

Correct! You could achieve this goal by respecting the rights (whatever those are in a subjective moral system) of other people and make an agreement that you won’t kill each other.

Here is your problem though. This only works if everyone does this, but however, everyone does not do this.

One of the fundamental failnaningans in question. It does not require everyone to do this. He simply asserts it to be the case. He later goes on to state that this is reflective of reality, as if that somehow disproves our points and validates his.

There are countless examples where people tried to rely on “I will be nice to you if you are nice to me” and they got dominated.

Obviously it is reflective of reality. So his conclusion must be that no society has any moral system – contemporary or historical – since all those atrocities and other transgressions still happen. Our claim, of course, is not that subjective philosophical morality will end all “bad” things, but that it is the way things have been done, it is the best way, and there are ways to improve upon it using scientific data to actually measure outcomes. But since he claims our version cannot exist, or is not a workable morality, or whatever permutation du jour he decides, and then admits that this is reflective of the reality of the world, then the only logical conclusion is that there is no moral system in any society at all. Which is, of course, absurd.

He just wants a way to call someone or something “evil” and not bear the responsibility of explaining why.

Abortion is always evil! “Don’t blame me! that is the objective absolute standard!”
Homosexuals are evil! “Don’t blame me! that is the objective absolute standard!”
Sex before marriage is evil! “Don’t blame me! that is the objective absolute standard!”

Of course Zach employs the nirvana fallacy. Since subjective morality isn’t perfect 100% of the time, then it’s no different than a free-for-all “might makes right” dystopia (interestingly, the “might makes right” concept is in line with his moral authority concept, because that’s what it is, but he fails to realize that his skydaddy is the ultimate might makes right).

This goes to religious thinking and the fundamental difference between that and science – only in religious mythology can things be 100% certain or true. Of course, nothing in the world is 100% certain or true, but that would then preclude the concept of absolute morality given by a perfect law giver (aka the christian god of the bible). That’s why his religious thinking appeals to him, because it’s black and white, right and wrong, no grey allowed, and why they can justify abortion/homosexuality/sex before marriage being immoral.

It goes without saying that their conclusions of absolute objective morality has never been observed in society, historically or otherwise, and that his moral system is itself subjective.

This is what we get when there is debate against religious fundamentalists: absolute certainty versus a graded level of certainty never reaching 100%; intellectually dishonest implacability versus intellectually honest uncertainty; gnosticism versus agnosticism.

“Power, authority, violence, oppression… those all have worked throughout history. ”

You need a history lesson. What do you mean by “worked.” All such systems were unstable, almost universally ended in rebellion.

If we look at the broader brush strokes of history, moving toward a universal moral system has resulted in a steady decrease in the risk of being murdered, in violence, with increases in freedom and quality of life.

But that aside (that’s a new can of worms) – you keep coming back to the claim that any system based upon first principles is inherently circular, but really all you are doing is restating the fact that they are first principles. Subsequent logic is not circular – it’s admittedly taking certain values as first principles.

You then systemtically exclude any possible justification for any principle over any other, as if they are all equal aesthetic choices, but your reasoning here is beyond shaky. Your unwillingness to grant even the most basic criteria is telling.

So really the best you have at this point is that you are unwilling to grant that principles such as – it is better to be fair than unfair, it is better to be consistent than self-contradictory, etc. are reasonable moral principles. You think these need to be objective laws of the universe (whatever their source) to be valid, I don’t. You might as well challenge science by saying that I cannot prove that truth is better than falsehood, or understanding is better than ignorance.

He realizes that his skydaddy is the ultimate might makes right (MMR). He just plays semantic games in order to make that OK and what actually happens in reality not OK.

But hey, if we are lucky he will show this thread to a bunch of his compatriots. At least some will see how bankrupt he is in his argumentation and get swayed our way.

Of course, what is more likely is that he will start his blog and selectively quote without linking back to the conversation. If you look at pretty much all creationist/theistic apologist sites, they quote mine like crazy, get in a froth over what rational people say, and then destroy their strawmen, without ever linking to the original content. On the other hand, those of us on the other side of the equation always link to the full context of what we write about. Deep down those apologists know that their ideas are bankrupt and that if other read actually good ideas in juxtoposition they will realize this. Hence all the theistic admonitions to steer clear of those evil secularists and Zach’s own refusal to read those of us who have been “rude” and “mean” to him. It all boils down to intellectual dishonesty.

But of course I didn’t equate morality to height. I compared the fundamental human values and social responses that evolution instilled in us to height and skin color. And it is these difficult-to-change, impossible-to-ignore traits that underpin the values we use to make moral decisions and to establish moral rules. And it is those values that make some moral frameworks more workable than others, regardless of what strange things a particular person or culture may attempt.

Once again you dodged my argument and chose instead to dismiss a strawman.

You’re not listening or not honest or both, Zach. All you appear to want to do is score semantic debate points by responding to misrepresentations of other people’s arguments.

I really tried to tease out your point in this debate, to see if there was anything to your position that would truly challenge a biological and social evolutionary basis for human morality. But all I see is dodging, misinterpretation and misdirection.

You might as well challenge science by saying that I cannot prove that truth is better than falsehood, or understanding is better than ignorance.

But that is EXACTLY what Zach is saying, Steve. He is saying you can’t decide one is better than the other without an objective SOMEONE to tell you.

Because according to Zach it is impossible that millions of years of biological and social trial and error might have arrived independently at such conclusions as being right is generally preferable to being wrong, that fear is unpleasant and stressful, and that killing another person is hard and causes severe strain in most people, or that smiles make you happier.

“You addressed my points Steven, thank you. It is 100%…logic…and I…realize it. And the masses here…follow you because you are…rational. But to be fair, you…have another choice…I guess it makes sense why you have…a…commitment to…“subjective morality”.

No offense, Zach. Your posts are so long (some are 15,000 characters or more) I can cherry pick them to death and make them sound like they were written by an atheist or almost anyone else without exiting the post. I’m sure you can do just the same, what!?

Maybe you should cut the responses down to more individual and direct responses. Your scattershot posts suck when it comes to keeping things high and tight which one might expect to be necessary in a dialogue like this one. Just sayin’, dog.

My opinion is you’re not doing yourself any favors by addressing two or three or four posters in one reply. You’re selling yourself short and you’re selling short those who are trying to engage with you. It even feels like an objective truth!

It’s also telling that so many creationists and apologists turn off ratings and filter comments on their videos, cull the comments sections on their blog posts, or don’t honor freedom of speech for anyone else who challenges their beliefs. They do realize the weakness of their “proofs” and “arguments”, so the only way many of them feel they can make headway is to silence those who challenge them. This tactic goes hand-in-hand with the cherry-picking and quote mining. It’s underhanded and dishonest, and shows the lack of character of those guys. It’s little wonder they are so comfortable with bigotry.

Indeed. I see it as an extension of the way church used to work – by holding a monopoly on information disseminated to the congregants. Historically none of them could read, only the church leaders were taught in the first place and rich enough to have books. Keeping out competing ideas was the only way to stay in business. Might makes right indeed.

Now in the age of the internet we see open access to all sorts of ideas and people are leaving churches in droves, governments breaking political ties with them (Ireland, Norway), and more and more questions arising. In a desperately futile attempt to keep the old ways (aka the only ways theism can retain a strangehold on society) they do exactly as you say and disable comments, delete them, never link back to other arguments, and – as we have seen recently – erase an obviously bad part of a post as pointed out by an atheist and then desperately try to cover it up and lie until you get fired.

Of course, Zach here will reference Keller’s most recent book in which he attempts to demonstrate that, in fact, while people are leaving the church even more are entering it, and it is more of a demographic shift with an overall increase in theism. (Remember, I did actually read the first part of the book before I couldn’t stomach it anymore). The trick he plays to pull this off, in addition to some regular old lying with statistics, is he lumps in those who say they are “spiritual but not religious” with the actual theists. By that definition, I’d be religious myself as I think it is quite reasonable to describe me as spiritual but not religious. In fact I’ve argued on these pages that Carl Sagan’s view on spirituality is a great one and has been unreasonably co-opted by theists and twisted to their means.

nybgrus- Just an anecdotal thought. I am part of the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation,and while many of the people that I have associated with over the years have not shown any interest in religion,I have noticed that many of them are starting to drift toward a religious view. Some of them whom I never heard a pious word from for 40 years,are now sending religious ‘glurge’ to me on almost a daily basis.
What is going on here? I am not entirely sure,but my guess is that some of it derives from their sudden realization of their mortality,and they are looking for a ‘way out’ so to speak.
Concurrent to that trend is a more and more conservative bent that alarmingly often gets into ‘Tea Party” and militant territory.Very disappointing from a rational viewpoint I must say. Sigh…

Fair enough, and I am sure that exists. I am by no means an expert on the relevant statistics, but I do follow them more closely than most. When you break them down by age group you find that indeed the older generation is much more religious than the younger (as one would expect). I do not, off the top of my head, know if there has been an absolute increase religiosity amongst the older age groups or if this is merely a migration of age groups over time while holding religiosity. However, what is clear to me from the stats is that the overall religiosity is decreasing with a hugely disproportionate amount of it coming from my generation and the one behind me (I am 29 years of age… 30 in April, in case you are curious).

So as far as I can tell any absolute increase in religiosity in your generation is more than offset by the drop of it in mine. And most notably it has been a very rapid decline over the last 10-15 years indicating that it is likely a de-conversion rather than being raised areligious (at least for the most part).

Of course, your generation tends to vote more than mine and also control media and be more vocal, but that is changing as well. Once your generation is looking down on us from heaven above, the swing in overall religiosity will likely be quite impressive indeed.

“You need a history lesson. What do you mean by “worked.” All such systems were unstable, almost universally ended in rebellion.”

Why does stable matter? And stable for who?

“If we look at the broader brush strokes of history, moving toward a universal moral system has resulted in a steady decrease in the risk of being murdered, in violence, with increases in freedom and quality of life.”

The 20th century would like you know that World War 1 and World War 2 were pretty bad, and pretty much shattered this idea. I would suggest reading up on the Holocaust.

“But that aside (that’s a new can of worms) – you keep coming back to the claim that any system based upon first principles is inherently circular, but really all you are doing is restating the fact that they are first principles. Subsequent logic is not circular – it’s admittedly taking certain values as first principles.”

Good, then you are a moral relativist, who just needs to realize it.

‘You then systemtically exclude any possible justification for any principle over any other, as if they are all equal aesthetic choices, but your reasoning here is beyond shaky. Your unwillingness to grant even the most basic criteria is telling.”

Yeah, call me crazy, but pontification doesn’t sell well for me.

“So really the best you have at this point is that you are unwilling to grant that principles such as – it is better to be fair than unfair, it is better to be consistent than self-contradictory, etc. are reasonable moral principles. You think these need to be objective laws of the universe (whatever their source) to be valid, I don’t. You might as well challenge science by saying that I cannot prove that truth is better than falsehood, or understanding is better than ignorance.”

1. I grant nothing. Neither should you- unless faith or pontification are your thing.
2. You can you prefer these things, and think they make a better society – but only if you grant that it is 100% based on your preference of red over blue – since what a “good society” looks like, is preference by your subjective view.
3. What is reasonable in your view of morality is subjective – based on values, (Everyone wearing white colors is best because black leads to heat exhaustion – white is better than black).
4. Science is not your friend here. Science says get some evidence or leave your preferences to what the world “ought” to be at home.
5. I don’t “need” them to be objective. They might be subjective, but by your explanation. Moral relativism is the only way you can have a non-circular base subjective morality.

Got a simple question for Zach :
Can a person be moral without believing in God?

Ok Zach, let’s see you put up for once. since you grant nothing and don’t hold to faith or pontification, what possible reason do you have to think that objective morality or a any kind of diety exists?

No dodging, no word games, no “I’ll write in my blog once it has a name”, no “I disproved your subjective morality” cop outs.

Either you have a valid logically sound position and can give it, or we must take as a given that your “lawgiver” is based on nothing more than your infintile need for a daddy figure and fear of having to take responsiblities for your own actions.

God and morality exist in the same sort of way. They’re ideas, thoughts, from the mind of man (or from the mind of God if you prefer). They don’t exist anywhere else. All we have, scientifically speaking, is: behavior. And i would say we can explain all human behavior with the following: all living things behave in ways that ensure that they and/or their progeny will continue to live. So, life itself is the underlying motivation for any behavior and is the justification for assigning value “good” or “bad”.

No matter what we decide is moral or immoral, humans behave the same. They still make decisions based on their training and personal situation, fear of consequences, etc.. I think that’s maybe why you keep demanding that you be provided with an objective first principle. We know that a person doesn’t decide not to kill someone because they’ve made the rational decision that they don’t want to be killed themselves. And yes, oftentimes might makes right and majority rules: but which came first: the chicken or the egg? If it’s simply the genetically enshrined struggle between the individual and the all we will never sort it out with our logic and philosophy.

So: you demand a reason for placing value on one behavior as opposed to another. I say: “good” serves life better than “bad” serves life. And we value life more than death because we’re alive and we don’t have a choice! We make value judgements where lions don’t because the nature of our consciousness is different from theirs. The debate then turns to one on the nature of consciousness. The nature of consciousness has been debated on this website too, in a similarly unending way. It may very well be that the “fitness” of this kind of consciousness will soon be tested in the ultimate way. It seems we’re the first species to hold the power to wipe out almost all life on the planet. Will it turn out we are supremely adapted or adaptable to the continuance of life? or are we ultimately “bad”?

This is why your position is untenable. You won’t grant even basic logic, which you try to dismiss as faith. (which is ironic, don’t you think?) You have to – because your premise is your conclusion, that there is nothing of value in terms of moral thinking other than an outside objective source. If you grant even the most basic logic or premise, you cannot sustain your desired conclusion. That puts you into the untenable situation you are in.

Zach also wrote: ” “You need a history lesson. What do you mean by “worked.” All such systems were unstable, almost universally ended in rebellion.”

Why does stable matter? And stable for who? ”

Thanks for the excellent example of how you can ask an inane question about anything, to keep asking for more justification, so that even a book would not be enough. Stable systems are self-sustaining, unstable systems are not and lead to chaos. Stable for who – everyone involved. Now go ahead – ask another question.

Will you at least grant this – a logical system that is internally consistent is better than a system which is self-contradictory. If not – why not?

No, I won’t…I mean, I can’t. You’ve already, once again, convinced me that an absolute objective moral standard is not plausible. But, even according to you, I can be “good without god”. That’ll have to be “good” enough for you.

By the way, goodness is a by-product of influences besides Christianity, which has monopoly on nothing. Every good, bad or neutral thing that has come from Christianity has also come from other things. Charity, genocide, apologia, virgin birth, miracles, knowledge, barbarism, etc…Christianity has few, if any, unique claims that we know of.

“…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle”

“Ok Zach, let’s see you put up for once. since you grant nothing and don’t hold to faith or pontification, what possible reason do you have to think that objective morality or a any kind of diety exists?”

Faith – Believing in what we have determined to be true from the evidences.Blind Faith – Believing without evidence, and possibly despite the evidence.

Many religions claim that they don’t need evidences to know that there is a God or believe what they believe. In spite of some Christians claiming ignorance here, this is not what the Bible teaches.

In 1 Corinthians 15:19 Paul himself declared that if Christ wasn’t God and didn’t raise from the dead and that Christianity only brought comfort for them in this life, then they should be pitied more than any other, since they were fools if that was the case. The idea that even if Christianity is false, is a good thing, did not sit well with Paul. Paul agreed with the commentator John Oswalt who had this to say about Christianity, “It is not one more of the world’s great religions. It is either the only religion, or it is an incredible figment of fevered imaginations that does not deserve to exist. Or as C. S. Lewis put it, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

Peter also whore in 1 Peter 3:15, “… always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”

Now, I say all that because I don’t agree with blind faith. I believe that actual faith is a good thing, it keeps us trusting in the truth we have. For example, when about to get surgery, I know that it is necessary and it will help me, but it doesn’t matter. When it comes time to go under, I start to doubt. I start to wonder if this is really the best idea and the idea of being cut open starts to cause more doubts. I then use faith to trust in what I already know to be true. That is the correct way a Christian (or anyone for that matter) ought to use faith. Not as some way of believing something without reason or evidences.

Now, to your question of morality.
As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rightly put out, if the impossible has been eliminated, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth.

If you look at my chart, I conclude that there are only 3 possibilities to morality and this is not a false choice. Objective, subjective, or not existing (no free will anyways). The only way subjective works rationally is if you arrive at complete moral relativism (I am not the first to realize this). However, since moral relativism goes against everything in my being, I won’t accept it. I can’t look at atrocities in this world (like the Holocaust) and say they are just as good as other actions depending on your perspective. If there is no right and wrong all so-called moralities are simply power plays.

I also do not accept the notion that we have no choices to make, so I do not go with the no morality option. This leads to only one conclusion left, objective morality, which aligns better with the world we see. Rape is not contingent on the eye of the beholder, it is an evil that “ought” not be, no matter what the rapist thinks – he “ought” not do it, and he “ought” to be stopped.

I arrive to the conclusion that morality can only be rooted objectively in one of two things.

a. naturalism
b. supernaturalism

I conclude supernaturalism, and the God of Christianity, but that’s much too large of a conversation to have in a blog posts commentary section. If you arrive at morality being objective naturalism, that is much more logical than Steven’s view, though I still see problems with it.

I realize this is a very short response, but it should at least give you a sketch of why/how I arrive at the conclusion that morality must be rooted in some objective standard – either within nature or outside of nature.

This is why your position is untenable. You won’t grant even basic logic, which you try to dismiss as faith.

As you already admitted, you cannot use logic to demonstrate values to be greater than other values. If you now disagree, please use logic to demonstrate that blue is superior to red – color preference is also based on values.

You have to – because your premise is your conclusion

No Steven, that is you. You are the one who believes against logic that logic can somehow demonstrate values to be better than other values. No, that’s not how it works.

If you grant even the most basic logic or premise, you cannot sustain your desired conclusion. That puts you into the untenable situation you are in

Logic can not be applied to subjective values. “The Yankees have the coolest looking uniforms.” Logic will not help determine this statements validity as it is rooted in a subjective value. Logic only applies to objective values.

Regarding history – see Pinker’s The Better Angles of our Nature. Even with the big wars of the 20th century, history is marked by a steady decrease in violence and murder. Them’s the facts – you can disagree all you want.

“Thanks for the excellent example of how you can ask an inane question about anything, to keep asking for more justification, so that even a book would not be enough. Stable systems are self-sustaining, unstable systems are not and lead to chaos. Stable for who – everyone involved. Now go ahead – ask another question.”

Another question, sure! But first a correction. No system has been or ever will be completely stable for everyone in it – hence why violent deaths still occur. Also, the reverse of that is true. No system that more unstable has ever equated to completely unstable – hence why not everyone has killed everyone.

The point is, even in an unstable (whatever that means) system, those in power still rule pretty well, at least for a while. But your assumption here is that a system that is stable for everyone is the most desirable system. Are you making an objective claim or subjective claim here? And if subjective, why should I accept your opinion on stable environments over the war lords who uses the instability of a system to gain power?

Your view is self-defeating.

“Will you at least grant this – a logical system that is internally consistent is better than a system which is self-contradictory. If not – why not?”

I will say that this question depends on whether you are asking for an objective answer, or a subjective answer.

Regardless, one could assert that even if this is true, a system that thrived on violence and oppression could be arranged to be “consistent” just as much as a system arranged to thrive and promote peace, love, and mutual respect. Both can be consistent, so consistent is of no help to you.

“goodness is a by-product of influences besides Christianity, which has monopoly on nothing.”

Anything pre-Christian that you know of that says to not JUST love your neighbor but to love your enemy?

This is data about how the world actually is, not how we want it to be.

Did the chimpanzees get their sense of a moral code from a lawgiver? If they did, then what makes humans so special? If they did not, then why are humans so backward that humans need a lawgiver to understand morality and chimpanzees do not?

Zach wrote: “I will say that this question depends on whether you are asking for an objective answer, or a subjective answer.

Regardless, one could assert that even if this is true, a system that thrived on violence and oppression could be arranged to be “consistent” just as much as a system arranged to thrive and promote peace, love, and mutual respect. Both can be consistent, so consistent is of no help to you. ”

Nice dodge and a non sequitur. See – you cannot even grant a basic logical statement because you know that once you do we can build a moral philosophy on top of it.

Internal consistency is not the only premise of a logical system, nor can you derive specific conclusions from this one premise alone. This is irrelevant to the question – is it a valid premise by itself. How does a subjective vs objective answer matter to the validity of this premise?

Let the squirming commence.

Also – you nicely demonstrate how you are stuck in false absolutes. You talk about systems being completely stable or unstable. Who is talking about that? There are degrees of stability – no absolutes. So you point is again just a non sequitur.

“Nice dodge and a non sequitur. See – you cannot even grant a basic logical statement because you know that once you do we can build a moral philosophy on top of it.”

It’s not a dodge. Stop calling everything you don’t understand a dodge – this is a legitimate point. I’m not “granting” anything. I require evidence; sorry that’s such a high standard for you…

“Internal consistency is not the only premise of a logical system, nor can you derive specific conclusions from this one premise alone. This is irrelevant to the question – is it a valid premise by itself. How does a subjective vs objective answer matter to the validity of this premise?”

You again show you don’t understand what the terms objective and subjective actually mean. Logic cannot be applied to subjective values.

Stop saying that it can. It’s nonsense. Logic will never tell which value is the right value because values are subjective – I like red, you like blue. Stop ignoring this basic point.

“You talk about systems being completely stable or unstable. Who is talking about that? There are degrees of stability – no absolutes. So you point is again just a non sequitur.”

Steven that was my entire point… systems are not 100% stable or 100% unstable… are you even reading what I write? Or just skimming it? Because there is absolutely no way you read what I wrote and then concluded what you did… you concluded the exact opposite of what I said.

Faith – Believing in what we have determined to be true from the evidences.
Blind Faith – Believing without evidence, and possibly despite the evidence.”

There is no difference, not even a minor one. You like punchy quotes. How about: “Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”?

That seems to indicate faith is evidence when there is no “other” evidence. You don’t get to redefine words. You don’t get to attach an adjective to a noun and pivot your argument. You may suggest nuance, if you like, but Gods immutable word makes it clear what faith, in the sense of your argument, really is. Your redefinition is nonsense.

On another note, Pinkers logic is faulty, but Plantingas is not? How come you get to choose? Dr. Novellas logic is faulty and yours is not? How come you get to choose? You haven’t shown anything substantive in more than a week other than that absolute objective morality is implausible.

I have to give you kudos, though, because you have not only shown it in the quality of your arguments. You blew that away with the sheer volume of your arguments.

Zach- Even if we were to concede that that quote/idea originated with Christian philosophy,what would that prove except that they had some good ideas (along with some bad ones).?
No one is saying that everything Christianity taught is wrong,just that they were doing human level philosophy,not receiving wisdom from on high.

“There is no difference, not even a minor one. You like punchy quotes. How about: “Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”?
That seems to indicate faith is evidence when there is no “other” evidence. You don’t get to redefine words. You don’t get to attach an adjective to a noun and pivot your argument. You may suggest nuance, if you like, but Gods immutable word makes it clear what faith, in the sense of your argument, really is. Your redefinition is nonsense.”

An understandable mistake. Though there is a substantial difference, even if you don’t understand it.

I have faith that the surgery is what I need. I have not yet seen the results of the surgery work on myself, but I have faith that it will.

Your point is mute.

“On another note, Pinkers logic is faulty, but Plantingas is not? How come you get to choose? Dr. Novellas logic is faulty and yours is not? How come you get to choose? You haven’t shown anything substantive in more than a week other than that absolute objective morality is implausible.”

Merely a rant.

“Zach- Even if we were to concede that that quote/idea originated with Christian philosophy,what would that prove except that they had some good ideas (along with some bad ones).?
No one is saying that everything Christianity taught is wrong,just that they were doing human level philosophy,not receiving wisdom from on high.”

Understand what I wrote in the context. It only proves that Christianity is not just some collective clone of the ideas around it. It is ignorant to think such falsehoods to be true. Are there similarities with others, sure, but at the core they anything but similar. You have to know very little about Christianity (and other religions) to conclude this.

Mr. Dictionary Definition himself comes out with quite a zinger. Faith vs blind faith. How about a dictionary?

“Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question ”

The sword slices both ways, don’t it?

Now it is just getting boring with how incredibly dishonest and ridiculous he is.

By the way, I don’t have faith my surgery will benefit me. I have damned good reason, logic, and evidence that it will. I don’t have faith that my fiance loves me, I have reason, logic, and ample evidence that she does. Trust and faith are different things. I can trust that engineers have built bridges and buildings well even though I don’t know much about it because I have evidence of their successes. In China, where buildings collapse much more regularly, I wouldn’t have such trust. If buildings starting falling willy nilly in a particular city in the US, I would lose my trust of those engineers and demand (along with many others, I reckon) that more oversight be put into it. I don’t just have faith that the engineers managed a good job – that’s why we have regulations and codes that they must adhere to. If you read about the origin of the regulations for boilers and see how that lead to international engineering standards you will see this (plus, it is an interesting read).

Sorry Zach-o. The only thing flowing from you is utter gibberish and drivel. Not that you are reading this anyways.

“An understandable mistake. Though there is a substantial difference, even if you don’t understand it.

I have faith that the surgery is what I need. I have not yet seen the results of the surgery work on myself, but I have faith that it will.”

No, there is no difference apart from two different definitions of the word faith. You may choose which definition you wish to use in an argument, or, if it applies, even use both. But saying there is a difference in the definition of the word faith because one is blind and one is not is simple equivocation.

You wrote,

“Your point is mute.”

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean “moot”.

I wrote,

“On another note, Pinkers logic is faulty, but Plantingas is not? How come you get to choose? Dr. Novellas logic is faulty and yours is not? How come you get to choose? You haven’t shown anything substantive in more than a week other than that absolute objective morality is implausible.”

You responded,

“Merely a rant.”

Okay, sorry to be pedantic again. My statement is clearly not a rant. You are making assertions about the veracity of logical arguments of third parties without supporting evidence. I am asking why you feel you have such privilege, especially in light of your obvious and complete failure to argue your own points successfully.

faith [feyth] Show IPA
noun1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Your attempt to distinguish some difference between faith and blind faith was irrelevant. The difference is in usage between: trust in a person or thing without concrete knowledge in the outcome of placing that trust in them/it, or, belief in a person or thing without empirical knowledge of them/it.

Mini-rant: I’d sure hate to hash out my share of the electric bill with you if I was your roommate. I have faith that you’d try to cleave it to your advantage.

You claim that “love your enemy” is uniquely Christian. It is not. Greek philosophers came up with this idea before Christianity – as part of moral philosophy.

To clarify, I am not saying that there is nothing good in Christian morality, or that Christian scholars did not add anything to human wisdom. I am just countering a specific factual claim you made which is demonstrably wrong. The Greek moral philosophers had a profound effect on Western thinking, including what we now know of as Christian moral philosophy.

Zach- If morality comes from God,wouldn’t it have been around long before Christianity?
If so,what makes Christianity some sort of break through philosophy?
Why would God not have imbued his creation with his principles from the beginning?
Why was God only interested in revealing himself to select people of the mid-east,why not the entire world?

“You keep misusing this. Yes – logic can be applied to subjective values. It cannot determine your values, but it can be used to assess them. Are the values internally consistent or not?”

You are correct. Logic will never tell you which values are the right ones – that is my point. I should have worded this better, but to prove it see my many other explanations saying this exact same point. I could say that all harm is bad and once I have built that foundation apply it to situations with logic. But logic will never tell me that all harm is bad.

A rapist could be consistent in his love for rape, but logic will never tell the rapist that he should not value his passion for rape.

“Still – you keep dodging this basic question, which you will do endlessly by finding some non sequitur to turn to.”

Steven, I have answered you directly several times. Consistency does not lead to harm is bad. One could build a consistent system off that moral foundation, but the foundation itself is subjective and could therefore be replaced by another subjective foundation that asserts that harm to others is good.

“Is internal consistency more valid than self-contradiction? How this gets applied is a separate issue, but you are using that to avoid even taking a stand on the statement itself. Transparent.”

Again, it depends on what you mean by this under the conversation of “morality is relative”. I’m not dodging your question, it’s just so vague that it depends on what you mean by it, so I need more clarification.

If you are asking “is consistency on moral values better than non-consistancy, then no – here’s why.
For the person who values blue over red, is the consistent preferring of all objects/things/etc. to be blue better than being inconsistent in your preference of blue, and liking some objects that are not blue… no. It’s all personal tastes and personal preference. You might call this person who values blue inconstant, but what does that matter? – it is what HE values, so what HE values is up to him entirely. So being consistent is not better than being inconsistent when it comes to values.

I might say that Van Gough creates the my favorite style of art and he is by far the best in my estimations of art value. But then along comes a painting by him I don’t like. Is my view less logical because one of his paintings are not something I value? Of course not. It’s preferences/values.

So if we are talking mere values, no consistency is not better than inconsistency. If we are talking logic then yes consistency is better than inconsistent. But your view does not stand on logic. You can only apply logic after you have built your view – which is built on first principles which rely on circular logic.

This is where your reliance on consistency breaks down.

Why would God not have imbued his creation with his principles from the beginning?
Why was God only interested in revealing himself to select people of the mid-east,why not the entire world?

This is a good question, but I don’t want to distract from the conversation at hand. Got questions has some very well put together articles that answer these kind of questions. But if you want to read Paul on it directly, read the first few chapters of Romans. Preferably in like the NIV or ESV translations so you wont’ get bogged down with the older translations old english (like KJV).

I think that it is a principle component of much of Christian dogma that we are imbued with His principles. That’s why you know there is God, even if you deny it.

This is a cut from your response to a couple of posts that even responded one to the other,

tmac57 wrote,

“Why would God not have imbued his creation with his principles from the beginning?
Why was God only interested in revealing himself to select people of the mid-east,why not the entire world?”

You responded,

“This is a good question, but I don’t want to distract from the conversation at hand. Got questions has some very well put together articles that answer these kind of questions. But if you want to read Paul on it directly, read the first few chapters of Romans. Preferably in like the NIV or ESV translations so you wont’ get bogged down with the older translations old english (like KJV).”

I wrote in response to tmac57,

“I think that it is a principle component of much of Christian dogma that we are imbued with His principles. That’s why you know there is God, even if you deny it.”

You responded,

“Yeah, same thing, see the first few chapters of Romans.”

Um. Maybe it was an oversight. I think you have too many irons in the fire myself. That’s really not fair to anyone with whom you are communicating. No offense, but it seems like you’re not really good at multi-tasking. But who knows, you may have a dozen other such discussions going on.

“But thinking magical Gods exist (without there being a scrap of evidence for that claim) is perfectly logical and is no way based on a leap of faith?”

If you really think that all Christians are so stupid as to believe in God for no reasons with no evidence then you have a boys view of Christianity.

I absolutely do not mean that disrespectfully.

In response to the inevitable “prove it”‘s that will be coming. That is for another discussion. This is about morality, not even morality = God, but narrowing down what the only real options for morality can be.

“In response to the inevitable “prove it”‘s that will be coming. That is for another discussion. This is about morality, not even morality = God, but narrowing down what the only real options for morality can be.
Objective
Subjective based on Moral Relativism
Not-existing.”

Whoa, there, stud!!

Why do you think you can set the kinds of morality under this discussion? Your original issue was with absolute objective morality vs not absolute objective morality. Then you added Not-Existing Morality. Because Dr. Novella opened it up to Objective vs Subjective Morality in a spin-off blog, you went there. Now you want to to re-state and call it that (Subjective based on Moral Relativism)? What about Moral Realism? Or Anti-realism. Or the whole host of other moral system arguments?!

Sorry, bucko, but you don’t get to change the parameters of the discussion without consensus. In case you hadn’t noticed, the goalposts are set in concrete…in other words, they don’t move.

“Sorry, bucko, but you don’t get to change the parameters of the discussion without consensus. In case you hadn’t noticed, the goalposts are set in concrete…in other words, they don’t move.”

I didn’t change anything, what are you talking about? I asserted that those 3 views were the only ones that I think can enter the conversation since the rest is circular and nonsensical.

I originally framed the conversation as Objective or not objective. This is the original post he made.

I then substituted not-objective for relative since they are the same thing.

I mentioned the no morality option at all at the very start of the conversation, but in a conversation about “how does one determine morality”, it sort of defeats the purpose of putting in the choice since we are assuming there is such a thing. It’s an option sure, but no one here has embraced the idea that all actions are equal and choice a complete allusion.

Self contradiction is a problem no matter what the context. It is an attempt to maintain two claims that are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter if the claims are subjective or objective.

I hate all fruit.
I love apples.

These statements cannot both be true.

Zach refuses to acknowledge that, tying himself in logical knots to avoid the ineluctable.

Why – perhaps he suspects where the slightest acknowledgement will lead. If a valid moral system must be internally consistent, then it must also be fair. Unfairness, by definition, involves inconsistency (I have rights but you don’t) or is arbitrary. (All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.) Any workable moral system must therefore at least meet some basic criteria of fairness.

But Zach cannot acknowledge this. He has to divert attention from these unavoidable conclusions with false analogies of “blue vs red”, as if my desire not to be tortured and killed is equivalent to preferring the color blue. Absurd on its face.

Also – I think Zach is quietly ignoring the fact that he was called out on his factual error. Greek philosophers talked about loving your enemy centuries before Jesus allegedly lived. Christianity is, in fact, a conglomeration of cultural ideas and philosophies that were floating around at the time. Not just the golden rule – but the virgin birth, being foretold by a prophet, raising the dead – most of the elements of the new testament are borrowed from other mythologies. These are all old stories, applied to the story of Jesus.

“I didn’t change anything, what are you talking about? I asserted that those 3 views were the only ones that I think can enter the conversation since the rest is circular and nonsensical.
I originally framed the conversation as Objective or not objective. This is the original post he made.
I then substituted not-objective for relative since they are the same thing.”

This is another one of your “understanding” fails. Not-objective and relative are not the same thing. You apparently don’t know how to deal with false dichotomies. Please study up on it. I have. There are options other than “objective, not objective” and “objective or subjective”. You have never worn grey?

You wrote,

“I mentioned the no morality option at all at the very start of the conversation, but in a conversation about “how does one determine morality”, it sort of defeats the purpose of putting in the choice since we are assuming there is such a thing. It’s an option sure, but no one here has embraced the idea that all actions are equal and choice a complete allusion.”"

Mr. Pedant here, again.

“I mentioned the no morality option at all at the very start of the conversation, but in a conversation about “how does one determine morality”, it sort of defeats the purpose of putting in the choice since we are assuming there is [not...sic] such a thing. It’s an option sure, but no one here has embraced the idea that all actions are equal and choice a complete allusion [illusion...sic].

Zach, I think you might have to go back and learn English grammar before you wade into the deep end of the pool and attempt debate.

The simple truth is, you try to reframe the argument at the first sign that you are losing your grip on it.

“If you really think that all Christians are so stupid as to believe in God for no reasons with no evidence then you have a boys view of Christianity.

I absolutely do not mean that disrespectfully. ”

I have a fairly extensive view of Christianity in most of its flavors. One side of my family was of solid Southern Baptist faith, the other Catholic. I spent time attending church with rather moderate Methodists and full blown Pentecostals. (I remember being told time and time again that the rapture would arrive before I graduated High School in 1987.)

Beyond all that my degree is in history with an emphasis on the Reformation and the Thirty Years War. I’ve spent a vast amount of time studying Christian philosophy and beliefs.

Of course Christians have reason to believe as they do, including the indoctrination in the myth cycle they received as children, societal pressures to conform, fear of death or personal responsibility, the comfort they find in the trappings of the religion, persuasion by others and every so often because they decide they like the moral message (or at least the non repugnant parts) of the Bible.

But none of that matters on the question of proof and evidence. There is no evidence for any God but a great deal to show that Gods are just a product of our imaginations, used by people and society to fulfill their goals.

The saddest thing of all is that Zach isn’t actually particularly bad at what he does relative to most theistic apologists. It’s just that they are all that horribly bankrupt and dishonest, usually without even realizing it. And that is the scariest part.

There was a story that Dawkins told about one of his professors in his early days that vigorously and vehemently denied the existence of the Golgi apparatus. He claimed it was nothing more than artifact from the slide. For years he justified and rationalized his stance (which was not horribly unreasonable since the evidence was thin, but the vehemence with which he did it was superlative). Then, there was the definitive demonstration that he was wrong. At a lecture he attended. At the end, he went up to the lectern and publicly thanked the man for proving him wrong and teaching him something new.

That last part is what truly separates Zach from most of us here. If there did exist evidence that incontrovertibly proved evolution false, I would accept it and be amazed and excited. This despite holding a degree in it.

Oh well, such is life. And the likes of Zach will be left at the wayside in relatively short order.

I’m trying to put my finger on why this line of discussion is lasting so long. I think everyone sees right through Zach and his puerile arguments. I for one have a hard time letting it go when someone lays out an outrageous claim, is egregiously factually incorrect, is dishonestly misrepresenting what is known to be factual, and is highly inconsistent. It’s especially frustrating when that person doesn’t ever own up to any of it and, for the most part, trudges along the same path while dodging parts he can’t answer with inane BS and not absorbing anything anyone is saying.

Considering his claims have been roundly debunked multiple times on these threads, I really don’t see the point of continuing.

Also considering that, from the start, Zach has displayed ignorance in many areas, it’s clear that he has never given what he’s arguing about much thought, likely simply deferring to his preconceived beliefs without question. That he’s factually incorrect about science, that he obviously doesn’t understand the fundamentals of logic, and that he’s inconsistent on most of his posts about one thing or another, anyone can adequately conclude that his exposure to these things is close to nil and he won’t have anything new, useful, or meaningful to offer. I haven’t seen him accept any corrections that have been made.

Since most of us have heard all of these arguments from religious apologists and creationists many times, have given them due consideration and already rejected them, and nothing new is being presented here, then this discussion is redundant.

So why are we still here wasting our time? Certainly no one has any illusions of changing his mind. Perhaps it’s the hope that he’ll (finally) own up to his mistakes and errors? My guess is that that won’t happen considering the sheer number of posts as well as the tenaciously stubborn clinging to ignorance and fallacy. Maybe someone has a better idea. I wish I had more to offer this discussion; while it’s fun to see people deconstruct his horrible arguments, nearly all of it is simply slight rewording of what’s already been said.

Self contradiction is a problem no matter what the context. It is an attempt to maintain two claims that are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter if the claims are subjective or objective.
I hate all fruit.
I love apples.
These statements cannot both be true.

Steven, this is correct. Could you quote me where I denied this?

What I did deny was the statement that my preference towards blue does not mean I must in every situation prefer blue over red – so your point above is true, but so what? It doesn’t change what I said to be wrong.

Zach refuses to acknowledge that, tying himself in logical knots to avoid the ineluctable.

Really? I just said it’s true… but not at all related to my previous point. But your point fails again.
I don’t want to be harm
Does not equal
I should not harm others.

That does not follow, if you believe it does then it is based on a sort of faith you have – it has nothing to do with self-contradiction. You are making a naked assertion.

““Why – perhaps he suspects where the slightest acknowledgement will lead. If a valid moral system must be internally consistent, then it must also be fair. Unfairness, by definition, involves inconsistency (I have rights but you don’t) or is arbitrary. (All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.) Any workable moral system must therefore at least meet some basic criteria of fairness.”

And declaring that all pigs are equal is a faith claim under subjective morality. So what? And this implies that in a subjective moral system I “OUGHT” to give two hoots about what you claim is inconstant. Well the fact is many people don’t (the “is”). So Hume’s “ought” from “is” ruins your moral day in the sun once again.

“But Zach cannot acknowledge this. He has to divert attention from these unavoidable conclusions with false analogies of “blue vs red”, as if my desire not to be tortured and killed is equivalent to preferring the color blue. Absurd on its face.”

Why is it a false analogy? You have to explain why it is and not just pontificate that it is.

In a subjective moral system your desire to not be tortured and killed IS nothing more than a preference (a value as you call it).

So yeah, I agree, IT IS ABSURD. So drop your absurd nonsensical position that morality is subjective.

“Also – I think Zach is quietly ignoring the fact that he was called out on his factual error. Greek philosophers talked about loving your enemy centuries before Jesus allegedly lived. Christianity is, in fact, a conglomeration of cultural ideas and philosophies that were floating around at the time. Not just the golden rule – but the virgin birth, being foretold by a prophet, raising the dead – most of the elements of the new testament are borrowed from other mythologies. These are all old stories, applied to the story of Jesus.”

Primary source?

Again, as I already said, if you are right I will be happy to admit error and correct my claim. Until you give me a source this is a he said she said situation.

Give me a primary source and I’ll happily admit I was wrong. Even say it twice if it makes you feel better. I’m not committed my claims like you are. Show me evidence and I’ll gladly change my position.

“Zach, I think you might have to go back and learn English grammar before you wade into the deep end of the pool and attempt debate.
The simple truth is, you try to reframe the argument at the first sign that you are losing your grip on it.“

Sorry buddy, but trying to talk through your prejudice is pointless. I’m not wasting any more time on it – mostly because I think most of what you write is done in a tongue and cheek manner with no goal of any serious conversation.

“Of course Christians have reason to believe as they do, including the indoctrination in the myth cycle they received as children, societal pressures to conform, fear of death or personal responsibility, the comfort they find in the trappings of the religion, persuasion by others and every so often because they decide they like the moral message (or at least the non repugnant parts) of the Bible.”

While some people just believe what they were told (atheist do this too by the way), there are many Christians who became Christians because they were convinced by evidences, not because they had been told it all their life – hence atheists who convert. It goes both ways.

If you find comfort in believing that everyone who is a theist is only a theist because of delusions and indoctrination then go ahead and believe that so you can sleep better at night. There are evidences and reasons for atheist and theism. Only a fool, or willingly ignorant, would claim it’s not.

“The saddest thing of all is that Zach isn’t actually particularly bad at what he does relative to most theistic apologists. It’s just that they are all that horribly bankrupt and dishonest, usually without even realizing it. And that is the scariest part.”

Another example of an emotional argument made only to comfort the individual making it.

“Self contradiction is a problem no matter what the context. It is an attempt to maintain two claims that are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter if the claims are subjective or objective.
I hate all fruit.
I love apples.
These statements cannot both be true.“

Another problem with this is it assumes one should care about not lying.

They can’t both be true, but me caring about telling the truth is another notion you haven’t defended.
Is telling the truth another one of your 1st principles?

“There are evidences and reasons for atheist and theism. Only a fool, or willingly ignorant, would claim it’s not. ”

Name one (legitimate) evidence for a supernatural deity outside of the bible. Demonstrate how the bible itself is evidence for god. I suspect that the most we’d get are miracle claims and anecdotal accounts of “personal revelation”.

Atheism doesn’t require evidence since it’s a rejection of someone else’s claim. However, considering the sheer unlikelihood of an all-powerful supernatural deity as well as the utter dearth of evidence for such an extraordinary claim, that in itself is evidence enough.

Once again, Zach displays false equivalency by advocating that theism and atheism are equal claims with equal weight and bearing. Just like he advocates that creationism and evolution are equal claims (though actually, he’s denied evolution outright in previous posts).

Honestly, the guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about and doesn’t even realize his own ignorance and inconsistencies. He can’t even get definitions right, and dishonestly makes up his own. He’s an intellectual child who refuses to grow up and learn humility.

Another problem with this is it assumes one should care about not lying.

Why is a “problem” something to worry about? You have not demonstrated this.
Also why is “caring” about something important? Why is “importance” of any concern? Why is “concern” a thing? Why is a “thing” part of this discussion? Why should we “discuss” anything? What does “why” mean anyway? Who cares about “meaning”?
These are the important questions…

Anything pre-Christian that you know of that says to not JUST love your neighbor but to love your enemy?

Despite now being corrected on this 5 or 6 times, I expect you’ll continue on in your error. You might even say I have faith in your stupidity’s ability to repeat itself over and over in one big glorious cycle of fail.

Not only did the Stoics teach the principle of kind treatment of one’s enemies, but I’m fairly certain it’s at the very least an implicit virtue of Buddhism.

Zach:

Faith – Believing in what we have determined to be true from the evidences.
Blind Faith – Believing without evidence, and possibly despite the evidence

“Blind faith” is a redundancy. What’s you’ve done here is essentially say a four sided square is different than a square, therefore your square isn’t four sided. Nice try, Zachy. You’re no better than that lying reverend.

Zach:

Hence, “faith” in the surgeon to do what he claims to be able to do for me though I have no PROOF that it will be successful on me personally.

We have reasonable expectations that surgery will be successful. That’s not faith. Nobody has reasonable expectations that wine can turn to magic blood or that a human zombie is floating in space somewhere “up there”. How do I know? Because most people go to doctors to be healed and not psychic healers or priests. But Zachy will say, “So what? That’s a claim for medicine by popularity!”

Zach:

If you really think that all Christians are so stupid as to believe in God for no reasons with no evidence then you have a boys view of Christianity

Given that not one christian can provide evidence for their claims, that’s an accurate description of what all christians are doing: stupidity. Everyone does stupid things from time to time. The key is to develop the tool set to recognize when you’re doing it and make an effort to stop doing it. I don’t see in any of your posts that you understand this. When someone encroaches on the object of your stupidity, you pile on even more layers of stupidity to protect the illusion.

“Without Plato’s original philosophies, and Plotinus’s misinterpretation of them, Christianity would not exist as we know it. More importantly, without the efforts of Philosophers like St. Augustine, Hypatia, and others, these important philosophical ideas would never have been integrated with the faith.”

Regarding the supposed is-ought problem, this is really a total non-problem and is something Carrier deals with in his argument:

“When your engines oil is low, you ought to change the oil in your car.

Well, what if you’re a scientist testing the effects of oil depravation on your cars engine? Then you would agree that you ought not to change the oil. Or what if you have a special new engine that never needs an oil change, and adding oil will only make it catch fire and explode. You would agree, you ought not to change the oil in your car.

Thus the statement ‘you ought to change the oil in your car’ depends on two things being true: (1) you want your car to continue working; (2) if you don’t change the oil your car will soon stop working. If either of those are false, the the statement ‘you ought to change the oil in your car’ is false, but if both of them are true, then the statement ‘you ought to change the oil in your car’ is also true, so the truth of this ought statement follows necessarily from those two fact, thus we get an ought from an is: if it IS the case that you want your car to work, and it IS the case that it won’t work if you don’t change the oil, then you OUGHT to change the oil.

All of medicine is about what you ought to do, or ought not to do, to repair an injury or cure an illness.

Engineering is all about what you ought to do, or ought not to do, if you want a bridge to survive an earthquake, or an astronaut to survive in space.

The statement stands though. I’ve watched literally hundreds of hours of religious apologists and read a number of their books.

I stopped because there were simply no new arguments and not a single one of them had any intellectual honesty, grasp of science, or even fundamental basics of logic.

I’ve even read Alistair McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion and cross referenced it with The God Delusion. McGrath absolutely distorted every point he made and in a few cases flat out lied about what was written in Dawkins’ book. Absolutely par for the course.

@JJ Borgman:

He’s all yours mate. Have at it. I’ve had my fill of religious apologia. I was here for the philosophy (and yeah, I got a little fired up when the topic shifted at first, but now I just read it to laugh at how hackneyed, trite, and absurd Zach can get).

It seems like the conversation, although clever and informed from a philosophical perspective, is ultimately divorced from reality. Let’s substitute the question: What is the proper basis for morality? with an equivalent question: What is the proper basis for feline hygiene? Well, we can guess that cats lick themselves as a way of getting dirt and hair off their coat. Usually they lick their paws first, and then use the saliva to clean their ears. I could go on with further analysis of how and why cats keep themselves clean, but if you ask me for the proper way…um, I guess I’m stumped. Most cats do it one way, but others slightly differently, but in all likelihood for the same general reasons. What more can we say about feline hygiene, or for that matter, human morality? People are animals, engaging in animal behavior, which is purely functional. If my neighbor’s house burns down I naturally want to help them, but I don’t open a book on the history of philosophy for directions. Ultimately it’s simple primate empathy that comes to the rescue and nothing else. We could, and probably should codify this tendency in our legal systems, just as religious institutions have done historically, but it’s merely a reflection of our primal impulses. If we want to make positive change, I’d say cultivating empathy in our children is our best bet for a more moral society. The empathy is already there, just waiting to be reinforced by a nurturing parent. Now if you’re talking about the proper basis for morality in government, law, or other formal institutions, then fine, bring on the philosophical brigade.

An interesting perspective. While I see what you’re saying, my take is that some moral philosophies are better than others. I think it can be generally agreed by most that our current society is overall better than it was 1000 years ago, or even 100 years ago. For the most part, people live better, longer, are more educated, are more tolerant, are literate, and society is more peaceful, equitable, and balanced than ever before (as far as we can measure). So, it would seem that the moral philosophies of most are better today than in the past because of how society is today. It also seems to be a general trend upwards, so to speak, from the past to the future. In other words, as time goes on, life gets better overall (let’s hope that trend continues).

I would say that there are good reasons for this. Science and education have slowly replaced religion and superstition over the past 400 years to where now, even though people CLAIM to put religion in the forefront of their moral philosophy, everyone relies on science and technology. It’s hard to deny the results science brings to bear in contrast to what little religion brings.

It’s not a huge leap to consider that, at least in some parts, peoples’ morals are better informed than ever from science and sound logic. While it’s easy to become jaded at some of what we observe today, we have to put it into perspective of how things were in the past, and they were a lot worse in a lot of ways.

So, I would say that with the advent of science, education, literacy, global communications, and technology, people are BETTER informed than ever before about what is real, and that informs their morals more than ever before.

To me, that’s evidence that morals informed by science, sound logic, and accurate data is far better than morals informed by pontiffs and superstition.

Here’s an interesting discussion on morality on The Atheist Experience with a theist who is attempting to make similar absolute objective morality necessarily comes from a law giver (aka the christian god of the bible) claims, and of course the inevitable claim that morality in humans proves there is a god.

There are some issues with definitions which differ slightly from what has been discussed here, but I think overall they are getting at the same thing.

What I liked were some great and inescapable logical points Tracie and Matt laid out that made the caller retreat into some VERY slippery territory. What I also liked was how Matt, as is typical, didn’t let the caller weasel out of points unchallenged. Of course, the discussion didn’t make it very far and the caller was all too predictable.

The unfortunate thing about conversations like this is that theists try to make a very complex and nuanced issue childishly simplistic. Of course, it’s easy to give up and defer to an authority, but in this discussion they make that situation impossible to escape subjective moral decision-making.

but rezistnzisfutl, it’s not our morals that actually determine our behavior. Our behavior is determined by genetics, the emotions we’ve developed as social animals, what we’re taught to do and not do, and our situation as it affects our decision-making. Morality is what we say ABOUT our own behavior and values: what we think is “right” and “wrong”. Our behavior may be influenced by what is innately FELT as right and wrong, but it’s not determined by what we’ve philosophically decided right and wrong to be. If we encode the behavior we believe to be morally correct as enforceable law, then it will influence behavior, as Christopher seems to recognize. Otherwise, behavior is dependent upon biology (and actually, creating laws and enforcing them is biologically- motivated too – can you come up with one philosophically devised moral rule that can’t be traced to it’s benefit to the continuance of individual, group, or their progeny?

Although Zach’s logic is hopelessly flawed, the reason this argument keeps going is because everyone else fails to recognize a point he has (perhaps inadvertently) made: that morality and behavior are NOT the same thing. We judge one kind of behavior to be best, but only as a justification of what we FEEL to be best. And we then recognize “right” and “wrong”, which are non-existent in the natural world. Animals do not place judgment on their own behavior. They may have the same negative and positive emotions we have with regards to their own behavior, and it seems likely that, like us, this is part of the built-in emotional reward to behavior that benefits or hinders their own life, the life of their progeny, or the life of their species. Everyone except Zach is assuming that whatever we decide we “ought” to do, we will indeed then do! This is not what history shows us. Instead, what we feel good about doing we decide is morally “good”, and we and our group are further inclined to do it.

The way in which morality exists is critical to understanding what Zach is so hopelessly trying to communicate, but failing to do so because he’s not recognizing what he’s perceiving, and the conclusions he then draws from what he perceives are illogical.

Morality is non-objective. All human actions ARE equal in a strict, logical and scientific way. There is no value to any one behavior over another unless it’s measured against some “ought”. The universe is indifferent to our life it would seem, and so even using the continuance of life itself as a standard against which to measure value is not logically supportable (although i would say that is what our values eventually boil down to and continue to evolve to be philosohpically) We’ve all done a great job here of working out how to establish a consensus on “oughts” and why they should be what they are, but none of us can establish why “oughts” ought to exist in the first place! This is what Zach is claiming to justify his statement that morals must be objective. There’s no natural reason for assigning a value judgement since we could just as well perform the behavior as all other animals do: driven by instinct and evolved emotional rewards and punishments. Why are there non-objective “oughts” that we argue about changing over time instead of simply: evolving beneficial behavior. Behavior is the only aspect of morality that exists objectively.

Strong emotions can make us think something must exist the way we feel it to exist seperate from ourselves.
Zach believes that because he and everyone else feels so very strongly that something like rape is wrong then it must be OBJECTIVELY wrong. Everyone else in the discussion accepts that feelings are subjective and have natural roots, and that we can agree on what will feel best for most everyone – not to be raped. Even if I’m male and am unlikely to get raped, I don’t want my mate and daughters to be raped. So we all, male and female alike, don’t like it. And even if i feel some genetically-emotionally motivated urges to rape, I’ve evolved to where i will find a way to prevent the behavior from an external cooperative group. You can see where the evolutionary emotional prohibition might arise: unwelcome genetic material, physical and emotional harm to females, etc. So the tribe keeps out rapists or sanctions them emotionally and physically. But no one is examining the reason why we have ideas about rape being “wrong” instead of just: I don’t like it and we all don’t like it, it gives us unpleasant emotions, so we’re going to ostracize and otherwise punish those who do it. No one is examining where we get the idea that rape is “wrong” beyond it causing negative emotions to everyone in the group.

I think it’s probably not an appropriate part of the conversation anyway, but i think if we recognized it Zach might be able to get off his one-trick pony. Sorry, Zach, but that’s what it looks like to me.

Some good points indeed. However, I think some added nuance is necessary and your thought is incomplete without it.

Yes, behavior and morality are different. And all the determinants of behavior are as you say and we do often (but not always) act irrespective of our morals (whether the ones we personally hold or the ones the society in which we find ourselves hold).

However, part of that environmental influence on our decisions is the society in which we live and the morals we hold as a group reflecting on the attitudes, actions, and thoughts that a child sees as (s)he grows up. Also, a large part of the determinants of behavior is (to put it simplistically) what is “cool” and what isn’t in society. Thus defining the morality of our society on various topics – gay marriage for example – dictates in large part what our behavior will be. If it is “cool” to hate on gay people and everyone thinks gay marriage is immoral… well, you get the idea. So by defining it and making it OK, we can then shift behaviors.

So I guess what I am saying is that while behavior and morality are definitely not the same, they are linked and it is usually behavior that lags behind morality. That is a huge part of why movements – like the atheist movement – works so hard merely to be known to exist. When the culture we are in conveniently doesn’t talk about us and privately (and now publicly) villifies us, that is the morality and the behavior follows. This is why the theists get up in a froth every time an atheist billboard goes up and why they tell us to “just shut up” and leave the poor Christians alone. The mere mention that we exist and are not sub-human is a huge threat to them, because as people realize this, they realize it is not amoral or immoral to be atheist and thus their view of morality changes and so does the behavior (which, as we have seen includes leaving the church).

I’ve never in my life felt black people were any different than me. But when I went back to my home country for the first time since we’d left when I was a toddler, the first thing most people asked me about me and where I live is “Are there many ni%%ers where you live?” I was completely taken aback. That sort of question wouldn’t have surprised me had I grown up in the 50′s and 60′s in the US. But I grew up in the 80′s and 90′s – the morality had changed and so had what I would be likely to “feel” is right. Those in my home country and those of the 50′s in the US “feel” very strongly that black people are inferior, dirty, whatever. So in cases like these the “feeling” you speak of not only drives morality (killing is bad, rape is bad) but the morality can drive the feeling (black people are sub-human).

That’s why I think the discussion is important, as is the explicit outlining of what is moral and immoral (and who is moral and amoral).

Sorry my thoughts aren’t quite as cogent as I would normally like them to be – it is early in the morning and I don’t have much time before I have to leave for clinic, but hopefuly you can grok what I am trying to say.

So I read that first article you sent, and started writing down points of contention to argue, but then realized that I would have to basically write a 20+ page paper to correct all the falsehoods in it, it’s really really bad, I mean worse than I have seen in a long time. I am not saying this to be dismissive, but that article lays a foundation that is based on several false very unscholarly claims, and then proceeds to build upon them with more false claims.

The cherry picking of verses from different contexts to demonstrate an apparent contradiction is a weak tactic. The author does not engage (nor seem to be aware) of the Christian response to such unscholarly claims. Look, if someone wants to write an article like this, this is absolutely not how you prove your point, unless you are only writing to a crowd that has zero background in any of this stuff. I have read the early church fathers, I know which one’s had different views, but the claims this guy ascribed to Tertullian are ridiculously off, most likely because the guy hasn’t actually read Tertullian, or his reading comprehension level is really bad.

Anyways, the article didn’t show any Greek philosophers who claimed that we should love our enemies, so I fail to see how this is evidence of that.

1 John 4 deals directly with Gnostic claim of denying the incarnation.

“Zach, I think you might have to go back and learn English grammar before you wade into the deep end of the pool and attempt debate.

The simple truth is, you try to reframe the argument at the first sign that you are losing your grip on it.“

You responded,

“Sorry buddy, but trying to talk through your prejudice is pointless. I’m not wasting any more time on it – mostly because I think most of what you write is done in a tongue and cheek manner with no goal of any serious conversation.”

I’ll admit it, I like a little jocularity. When I comment “tongue-IN-cheek”, I’ve taken to adding a smiley at the end of the post to help clarify. Otherwise, I’m making a legitimate point. And I try to keep it to one subject per post, just to keep it easy for you.

What I’m finding is you have no good response to the points I’m making. You just to do what you did here and shrug it off with unimaginative school yard sniveling. But I’ll soldier on in the hope that, at some point, you’ll make a comment or rebuttal that is as intelligent, legitimate and comprehensive as you seem to want to appear.

Buddhism teaches love all sentient beings, which includes your enemies and that was 400 BCE.

There are reasons that the teachings of Buddhism make sense from the physiology that humans have, and how it evolved.

Not all the explanations of Buddhism are correct, but the behaviors they teach pretty much are, and it is not subjective and do form a universal morality for sentient beings provided they are social organisms (which pretty much all sentient beings have to be because non-social organisms wouldn’t evolve the neuroanatomy to instantiate the communication skills necessary to be sentient), and that they evolved (is is possible (in theory) to postulate synthetic organisms that were created and did not evolve and presumable there are more degrees of freedom for synthetic creation than for natural evolution which greatly constrains the path).

Buddhism teaches that Dukkha (suffering) exists, what causes suffering and what steps to take to prevent suffering both in oneself and other sentient organisms.

For an organism to evolve, it must have the capacity to experience dukkha because this is how evolution configures organisms to favor actions that favor survival and reproduction and to avoid actions that disfavor survival and reproduction. This is not a simple task and not surprisingly, dukkha is not simple.

To optimize survival and reproduction, organisms must avoid the adverse feelings of dukkha. What causes dukkha depends on the environment. As the environment becomes more complicated, so must the pathways that trigger dukkha become more complicated. Once organisms become self-aware and start communicating, interacting and competing with each other, then dukkha becomes very complicated.

All social organisms are characterized by communication.

All organisms are characterized by at least two states, the state at rest and the fight-or-flight state. The fight-or-flight state exists because some organisms use other organisms as food, and so predators chase prey until they catch, kill and eat the prey. Evolution has configured organisms to avoid being caught, killed and eaten, and does so by triggering feelings of dukkha.

Central to Buddhism is the concept of karma, the idea that what goes around comes around, that if you do evil, somehow evil will happen to you. The Buddhist idea of karma is correct, the idea of the mechanism is not. Karma is mediated through physiology. The idea is that if you inflict dukkha on other sentient organisms, then you will experience dukkha too. For sentient and social organisms, this has to be correct.

To a first approximation, what an organisms’ CNS does is take in sensory information, decode it and assign a state of dukkha to its present state, and then contemplate actions to reduce the level of dukkha. Pulling a hand away from a hot surface that has been touched is an example.

For a social organism to understand communication from a conspecific, the organism must input sensory data and use that data to decode the mental state of the organism. Essentially the receiving organism must emulate the mental state of the organism in order understand that mental state. Humans and other organisms do this with what I call a theory-of-mind. Understanding the mental states of an organism requires emulating the “dukkha calculator”, that part of the CNS that generates a relative dukkha value from sensory inputs.

Efficiency in physiology requires that minimum resources be allocated to tasks. Rather than have multiple “dukkha calculators” to calculate the dukkha value for each conspecific, it is more economical to have a single dukkha calculator and use that for both internal dukkha values but also for external dukkha values for conspecifics. This leads to the moral heuristic Hillel the Elder stated: “that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”.

If everyone had the same dukkha calculator and was rational and honest, then the Hillel heuristic would work just fine. Unfortunately people are not rational and honest and some want to use what ever social conventions there are to hurt and exploit others. The issue of gay marriage is an example. From the Hillel heuristic: Would being denied the ability to marry the person you love be hateful to you? Then don’t deny the ability to marry the person they love to your fellow.

The heuristic “might makes right” is about being able to inflict dukkha on individuals unless they do what the stronger person says to do. For the stronger person to inflict dukkha on an individual, the stronger person must emulate the dukkha calculator of the weaker person and figure out what to inflict on the weaker person such that their dukkha calculator generates a state of dukkha, and use threat of inducing that state of dukkha to compel the weaker to take certain actions.

Thus for the “might makes right” heuristic, the stronger person must vicariously experience the dukkha they intend to inflict on their victim to appreciate that it causes dukkha. The dukkha calculator is part of the CNS and is strongly coupled to dukkha response pathways, pulling away from a hot surface, or triggering fight-or-flight physiology.

The fight-or-flight state diverts resources away from ongoing repair and maintenance into immediate consumption. Over time, this causes degeneration. This is the mechanism by which chronic stress causes adverse health effects. This is the mechanism by which karma happens. If you do things to invoke dukkha in other people, you will experience dukkha too, and over a lifetime that will cause adverse health effects.

The usual way that people use to practice “might makes right” while reducing their dukkha experience is to deny the humanity of their victims. If you “other” someone, and pretend that they don’t have the human capacity to experience human dukkha, then your vicariously experienced dukkha is that much less. This is the reason for xenophobia and bigotry and the fundamental denial of the humanity of marginalized people. I discuss this in my blog post on xenophobia. People who consider themselves Christians are unable to empathize with gay people because they have “othered” them, and so don’t consider them to be human beings that have the capacity to feel love or pain. This is why the admonition of Jesus of Nazareth to “love your neighbor as yourself” rolls right off their back when the person is not of their tribe. A “neighbor” is a “human being”, “like me”, someone I can identify with, someone who’s theory-of-mind matches my own. Everyone else is subhuman and their dukkha doesn’t matter. This is why “the tears of strangers are only water”.

To summarize, Buddhism does teach universal morality based on the fundamental goals of evolved organisms. Organisms evolved to avoid dukkha. Social organisms evolved to share their states of dukkha. Inflicting dukkha on other social organisms will induce dukkha in yourself. Induction of dukkha exerts physiological costs that accumulate over time and this potentiates feelings of dukkha over time.

An example of this in action is occurring right now in Afghanistan. The leading cause of death among US soldiers in Afghanistan is now suicide and not combat. Being in combat leads to physiological changes that include PTSD, and dukkha. Ending that pain is why people kill themselves.

Thanks for that A-E webcast link. That was Zach, I mean Shane, on the line. He was so deliberate in his set up, you just knew he was trying to route Tracie and Matt through a gauntlet. I listen to their podcast all the time, but it was fun watching the show for a change. I’m always amazed at how patient Matt has become. Conversation lends itself much better to debate than text. It deals with interruptions and caveats better, though text is better for recall, I guess. Shane really dropped a stink-bomb at the end of the show.

It is ironic, but the hypothetical all powerful alien that would destroy the world if its orders are not carried out is exactly what theists are positing with their God or gods and why they do things that non-theists consider to be immoral.

That is why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That is why there was Noah’s flood. Some people did stuff that God didn’t like so he killed everyone except a very select few. Even someone who was nominally good enough to be saved, disobeyed and looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt.

Just looking at something justifies being killed by being turned into salt? I guess God wants to keep His snuff porn to Himself.

To Zach or other TB’ers: I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t claim to know whether or not there is a god, but I don’t think there is. He stopped showing himself a long time ago. He is silent and hidden. There most certainly is no Abrahamic god. He is a preposterous character and obviously a construct of human imagination and bronze-age morality. Whomever subscribes to that particular kind of god is worthy of nothing less than ridicule.

“He is a preposterous character and obviously a construct of human imagination and bronze-age morality. Whomever subscribes to that particular kind of god is worthy of nothing less than ridicule.”

You wrote,

“Who says he’s a bad guy and why? What standard are you judging him with?…”

That’s easy. Even you don’t capitalize His name/word. His actions as recorded in The Holy Bible reveal a pedantic, arbitrary, misogynistic, and all-the-things-dawkins-wrote, monster. Until you recant to all of his alleged mercies, he’s just one big ay-hole.

The bottom line, Zach, is there is no way to defend this despicable being. as expressed by Epicurus.

What standard? Given that their is no absolute objective moral standard, I’d have to go with almost any modern subjective standard. The kind you have a problem with, but cannot effectively argue against.

“Oh OK. He’s only bad because you don’t like it (you like blue he likes red).
Understood.”

Okay, Zach. I get it that you like the red v blue argument. It’s stupid. It’s base, in your opinion. Let me recite that: In Your Opinion. Google “base” if you’re lost already.

You have made no argument to support your opinion. Do that first. You don’t get to argue without a foundation as you are so fond of pointing out.

The Abrahamic god is morally bankrupt without any reasonable argument based on any modern moral code…yes, yes, I know about the Abrahamic religions and their equally bankrupt moral codes, so citing them won’t help your argument. Cite your own argument.

Zach, I will hound you until death about your failure to support your original argument. The rest of this is nothing more than “jogging”. Support your assertion that morality is absolutely objective or rescind your argument.

“Who says he’s a bad guy and why? What standard are you judging him with? Your value that he’s a bad guy (red is better than blue?)”

The standard that comes from realizing that living in an equitable society where all people have equal rights and opportunities. The knowledge that, what is written down in your holy book of genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and subjugation is inferior to a society that abhors those things. Those things go against our well-documented evolutionary drives where ALL people can live in a peaceful, cooperative society where survival, well-being, and happiness are maximized.

The problem with your god is that many of his “morals” are arbitrary. They make no sense. The supposed immorality outlined in the bible for certain acts cannot be traced to any sort of real societal or human harm. What’s wrong with harm? Harm is contrary to our human impulse to survive and thrive. Barring the extreme outliers in society (ie, psychopaths, schizophrenics, etc), these are universal human impulses. That is why you see laws and ethics reflect this nearly universally in one form or another.

Another problem with your “law giver” is that he’s exclusive. The morals work fine for followers, but not so well for non-believers. A society that intentionally subjugates and oppresses a certain group is not one that will thrive and flourish as well as one that reduces that as much as possible. That is a reason why, since the advent of science and “enlightenment”, life for humans has generally improved overall. Your “law giver” has failed miserably to provide that, especially in cultures who follow his word the most closely. Of course, a lot of that has to do with an inherent flaw with most religious thought, that of concrete right and wrong, good and evil, black and white. Society doesn’t thrive so well in absolutes.

“Okay, Zach. I get it that you like the red v blue argument. It’s stupid. It’s base, in your opinion. Let me recite that: In Your Opinion. Google “base” if you’re lost already.
You have made no argument to support your opinion. Do that first. You don’t get to argue without a foundation as you are so fond of pointing out.”

If this is true about my view, it is just as true about yours. So who cares.

“Oh OK. He’s only bad because you don’t like it (you like blue he likes red).

Understood.”

You only claim God is good because you have defined him as good. By declaring him as the creator and author of morality you have given yourself a blank check to excuse any of the behaviors God shoes in the biblical myth cycle.

Of course it’s a moot point since we have no reason at all to believe in any kind of diety, good or bad.

It’s ironic that Zach, the only one arguing for objective morality, is expressing the most subjective and arbitrary morality of anyone here. Instead of having to give any reason or logic for something being moral, he takes an arbitrary piece of ancient text and says “there, that’s the stuff that’s moral”, and subsequently doesn’t have to bother his brain to work out right vs wrong. His accusation of “red vs blue” is actually his own problem. He arbitrarily chose the red book over the blue book, in this case the red book being the Christian bible.

Also ironically, if he tries to argue why the bible is moral and not just an arbitrary choice he made to use as a basis for his moral code, he would have to start using subjective morality to make those arguments.

Why have a brain if all you’re going to do is recite something you read? By Zach’s standards, any type of reasoning is circular logic without ultimately referring to the bible, so why use reason at all?

Who says he’s a bad guy and why? What standard are you judging him with? Your value that he’s a bad guy (red is better than blue?)

By what standard? Literally any standard that isn’t verbatim from the Bible. Any standard you can possibly imagine that doesn’t rest 100% literally word-for-word from the bible demonstrates he is not only a “bad” guy but an atrocious, disgusting, capricious, malevolent, jealous, vengeful, and stupid guy. Yes, stupid.

Everyone is bad and didn’t do what I wanted them to (never mind the fact that this already a problem with the narrative) so instead of just doing my omnipotent thing and instantly fixing it…. I’m going to drown everyone and have a 600 year old man create an entire race of people through incest. Brilliant!

So yeah, the whole “If you think Christians believe in wacky stuff without evidence then you have a boys understanding of Christianity” kinda goes right out the window that easy.

Zach, the Buddhist philosophy of benevolence to all sentient beings is objective and is not simply subjective. It is demonstrably superior than your “might makes right” according to your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnebenovelent law giver.

This is probably the first and will be the last time I provide a link back to the Unification Church, but even they agree the principle of loving one’s enemies pre-dates christianity. It’s apparent that it was well established in Eastern religions and philosophy.

Zach, you ignored my main point. You chose red over blue. You subjectively chose the Christian bible as your authority on morals over thousands of other tomes. So your morality is subjective, and thus by your own standards you practice moral relativism.

“Zach, you’re not interested in any kind of truth. You’re only interested in some kind of faith. They are not the same thing.”

You wrote,

“Rant.”

That’s it? My three sentences is a rant? Zach, you’re a sad sack. You are in dire need of a life reset.

I mean actually. Zach, this is the same plea to emotion you’ve made right along. Please come up with a real argument instead of these sorry little punchy platitudes that prove nothing followed by whiny excuses for your inability to counter solid refutations. OMG, man, you don’t have logic or philosophy on your side!

Sam Harris’ view is also not actually all that different from the one we have been discussing here. He sets a first premise – to maximize human wellbeing and minimize human suffering – and then states that these states can be determined neuroscientifically. It really isn’t that big a deparature from the basic notion we have been saying here and he certainly agrees with us vastly more than he would with you. He doesn’t actually say there is an absolute objective morality. He says that one can objectively determine morality using brain states and those two starting and unprovable premises.

Unless I horribly misread his book and misunderstood the clarification given by (IIRC) philosophrenzy.

@rezistnzisfutl & Mlema:
When I read part one of this blog post, there was something that seemed slightly incongruous that I wasn’t able to put my finger on. After digesting it for a while I now realize that it’s because Steve was subtly implying a different working definition of morality from the one that I perceive. His was top down and mine bottom up. I understand morality to be an animal quality that’s a combination of desires, standards of behavior, and observed behavior which pertains specifically to people in a sociological context, much in the same way that a primatologist would sit and watch apes interacting with each other and note certain behavioral tendencies, and infer their motivations from those behaviors. The morality is objective in the sense that it’s a real animal phenomenon, even though the standards, desires, and inclinations themselves are meaningless outside of the sociological or zoological context.
The working definition implied by Steve, when he states “the proper basis” implies an “ought” which is applicable to moral philosophy but not morality as I understand it. I think maybe we should delineate between morality and moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is more of a set of consistent logical statements based on certain assumptions of what is good. Any given philosophy may or may not reflect the actuality of animal morality. While inventing moral philosophies is also an animal behavior, I think it falls more into the category of an intellectual exercise and wouldn’t be considered a moral behavior by anthropologists.
Then there’s the chicken or egg question that arises from the Hitchens’ statement that morality doesn’t stem from religion, it precedes it. Can moral philosophy affect morality? I tend to agree with Hitchens, but if Steve’s “ought” has any weight, morality from the top down, then religion could in fact precede morality. In other words, a moral philosophy, whether embedded in a religion or otherwise, might be able to change our basic tendencies. I’m not sure I have an answer to this question. What would society be like if religion had never existed, better, worse or exactly the same? There’s probably a whole body of anthropological literature that addresses these issues, of which I’m unaware.

Christopher. I too have continued to think on this subject. If we see something we call “morality” in humans and other animals, doesn’t it imply that we’re judging one behavior as more acceptable than another? Where does this valuation of behavior come from? It seems we assign “good” behavior to that which would assist life towards continuance, and “bad” behavior towards extinction.

But the judgement, or recognition, of value to any particular behavior as “bad” or “good” is uniquely human (I surmise). And the further recognition of the questions posed by this discussion: again unique. And the recognition that they are uniquely human: unique. Etc. Etc. etc. – one of those eternal questions. Hence, the unending nature of this conversation.
. There’s no biological reason to assign “moral” or “immoral” to any certain behavior, since behavior is encoded genetically and encouraged or discouraged emotionally and physically by the environment, or by social agreements that we enforce – it seems that moral philosophy is indeed an intellectual exercise. Or is it? perhaps if we could all be educated in moral philosophy and work out some valid rules that we agreed on universally, perhaps that would change. Again, humans would exploit their unique ability to transcend their biology: but will they? or does moral philosophy simply reflect moral thought and not in turn effect it?

because: I observe that historically: might makes right and consensus of power determines a society’s moral “code”. Moral philosophy may serve to criticize that code, but the code only changes if common average people who disagree with it become the majority, or a minority is able to hold power (perhaps militarily) That seems to happen in an organic sort of way. Individual emotions and thoughts based on experience cause an individual or group to make a stand against the popular moral code. Perhaps in response to changes in technology or population pressures. I would say that morals have evolved that support whatever current behavior is agreed upon or enforced. Behavior and popular moral belief seem to change simultaneously.

It’s been interesting to consider the various historical illustrations of this (which the conversation has stimulated me to think about)

To the Christian-haters: I get it. But it’s really inappropriate (in my opinion) in a rational conversation. I’m inclined to believe that it’s legitimate to criticize various logical conclusions – but to hate an entire religion like it’s a nasty neighbor whose dog poops on your lawn does nothing to advance reason. (I realize that’s not everyone here)

They’re trying to discredit evolution? Stay with the scientific facts. They’re trying to say a human has a physical spirit? Explain the lack of scientific evidence.

The young church didn’t have a philosophy so much but was based on faith in the Jesus of St.Paul’s teachings and those of Jesus’ brother James and the writing of St.John. Christianity was for the poor and disenfranchised, not for philosophers – and that’s why it spread. Although Jesus was an educated man (called Rabbi) and was likely influenced by the Greeks in his thinking (based on the philosophical influence in cities where he lived), the message to followers was not philosophical (although love your enemies is, I guess, a moral philosophy). Christianity was legalized (usurped?) by the Roman emperor Constantine, perhaps as a calculated move to capitalize on its growing popularity. He was likely responsible for the mix of paganism with early Christian teachings. Also responsible for the “birth” of the Roman Catholic Church – the largest and oldest of established, organized sects. (and likely the reason for most of the hatred against Christianity)http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521818389_CCOL0521818389A008

Christianity was a spiritual and social message. I think it differed from the Greek “love your enemy” in that it was meant to be unto death. It taught that the history of the soul is more important than life itself – so – it’s better to be killed than to kill. Yes, the ultimate stoic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

Hardly anyone accepts this admittedly radical interpretation among modern Christians. The Religious Society of Friends has been the western manifestation in more modern times.http://www.qkr.be/?page_id=95
In the United sTates we have the Quakers – but there were fractures in that group during the revolution. Quakers were later despised for refusing to fight in subsequent wars. Now their community structure and technological isolation make them an oddity.

It may have been Tolstoy who was responsible for resurrecting the view of the early church in a broader way. He was in communication with the Society. His writing and relationship with Ghandi admittedly influenced Ghandi’s passive resistance in throwing off the British in India.http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Oct%20010/y.p..htm
likewise Martin Luther King Jr was influenced by Tolstoy.
you’ll note too that the Society promotes economic justice, and equality between the races and genders

I realize this conversation is pretty much over, so I’m indulging my opinion an viewpoint pretty liberally. Hoping to expand the general understanding. Know your enemy To know is to love? Heck, I’m getting really confused. Have no idea how Zach organizes his moral views when what has been called “Christianity” has been used to justify every behavior from sacrifice of one’s own life to torture and killing.

I’m not entireyly sure what the real thrust of your comment is. However, I would like to clarify that I do not hate or even dislike Christians. I hate Christianity. I dislike the warped false thinking that all belief systems engender in those they suck in. I see no core differences between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, and Heaven’s Gate. The details are different and can lend to a bit more palatability for some religions over others, but that is in the same way that a non-violent rape is slightly less repugnant than a brutal one ending in murder. The core is the same either way, just the details are different. Of course, the real problem is that when someone believes in stupid ideas, they see an attack of their ideas as an attack on them. This is unfortunate and I do, for the most part, try and make the distinction clear. But ultimately it is not my responsibility that someone cannot separate a criticism of their ideas from a criticism of them and, quite frankly, if they genuinely believe it so fervently there is indeed an element of personal criticism that is indivisible from the critique of the idea(s) in question.

I do believe we also made a very fair effort to have a non-religious conversation with Zach and amongst ourselves. We certainly exhausted any attempt at conversation from his POV without tapping into the undeniable religious nature of his claims. The problem was he had no way to defend his stance whatsoever without resorting to citing religion. And then of course, once you do that, the game is over around these parts.

Well said nybgrus. I too wish to echo that I don’t hate any christian just because they’re christian. I have many christian friends and some are even fundamentalists. On a side note, what’s ironic is that I’ve been shunned by christian friends and family simply for being an atheist, something I’d never do to them simply for being christian (or any religion for that matter). For me, it’s rather the actions they do that determine my friendship with them more than their beliefs.

What transpired with Zach was that he leveled secular, physical claims about morality, the physical world, and science. While we all know that his rationale ultimately leads to his fundamentalist christian beliefs, what we were focused on were the non-religious claims he was making. So, for the most part we were not even criticizing his religious beliefs (though that did occur from time to time as comparisons to perceived subjective levels of “good” morality).

Zach’s entire premise was that absolute morality exists and that requires an ultimate omniscient law giver of some sort, a decidedly supernatural belief. So, I don’t see how religion can be avoided in a discussion about that.

So I was working on an art project (yes, I’m trying to be artistic!) and was clicking through YouTube videos to listen to in the background since I rarely actually get the chance to do so. I came across this 2 year old video of Sam Harris debating William Lane Craig.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the video before, but not in some time. And I’ve long since stopped listening to Craig and his windbaggery. But it was amazing how much of a WLC acolyte Zach actually is. And sad that he is quite inept at it. WLC is a windbag and a buffoon, but at least he is cogent and eloquent. Zach was merely parroting the same talking points and simply incapable of actually thinking on his own about them. Hence his incessant return to the same tired points over and over again. WLC at least couches it all in flowery prose to keep the naive entertained.

But to the real point – in listening to the two go back and forth it clicked what this was all about. WLC – and Zach by extension, though he fumbled the point and refused to acknowledge it even though WLC does – concede that a secular purely human derived morality can and does exist. The issue WLC has with that is that if there is no god, then we cannot call things “good” and “bad” or “evil” because the concepts would be meaningless. In a non-directed dispassionate universe there is no extrinsic thing that can say something is evil and what is evil can change.

The mistake he – and Zach – make is that they feel this makes it unacceptable. They use the feeling that this shouldn’t be the case as evidence that it actually isn’t the case. Zach was incapable of taking this thought further, though he tried a bit and in a way slightly different to WLC. WLC prontificates in flowery language and tries to invoke the neccesity of god as evidence for the existence of god and thus his unchanging objective morality.

Of course Harris destroys the entirety of it quite handily, but one analogy he uses that I forgot from the book was the concept of health. Nobody questions why we doctors do what we do – why should I minister to the sick and infirm? But furthermore how do we define health? Is there an objective measure of “health?” Of course not. I cannot say my patient has 72/100 hit points and I need to tank him up to 100 before sending him off on his next quest. Does the fact that my 72 year old grandmother can only walk 5 miles whilst Jack LaLane ran marathons mean she is not healthy and he is? A hundred years ago “healthy” meant living to the ripe old age of 60 or so. So no, there is clearly no objective measure of what “healthy” is, yet we can obejectively assess whether is a person is becoming more healthy or ill and how we can achive the goal of restoring health.

And so is the same with morality. And wishing we had an extrinsic arbiter to remove the burden from ourselves does not make it reality. And wishing that there was “evil” and “good” does not make it so either.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Similar to how conspiracy theorists create comfortable fictions out of anomaly hunting and question begging in order to feel less threatened by a chaotic, messy, and oftentimes violent world, it’s similar with many theists. It’s comforting to have some sort of filial relationship to defer to when bad things happen or inexplicable tragedies occur like Sandy Hook. It removes a burden of having to try to make things better or to consider the actual ramifications of belief, though I see some theists put a LOT of effort in trying to force others to conform to their religious belief, thinking that their way is the only right way.

I recently watched an interesting videoby TheoreticalBulls*** called William Lane Craig Is Not Doing Himself Any Favors regarding Kalam’s CAG where TB’s final observation dealt with a long-winded quote from WLC where Craig essentially threw up his hands and admits that the given philosophical definitions don’t accommodate his concept of a God caused universe and they should be revised. Talk about placing the cart before the horse – a vivid example of how apologists search for evidence for their preconceived notion, basically the antithesis of science where conclusions are based on the evidence. All it boils down to is one big argument from ignorance and begging the question, and that’s why they never even try to directly demonstrate their claims.

Indeed. Kalam has been so well refuted it boggles the mind that it is even tried. During my same art project I came across a 2 year old video by Non-Stamp Collector where he essentially demonstrates that after precluding all the fallacies, straw men, and disproven arguments from both sides, there is no debate left and the Christians have lost. But we all knew that, of course.

I do agree though – a universe without purpose and in which we are ultimately responsible for each and every of our actions is kind of scary. I liken it to the notion of thinking that one day I will be an attending and final decisions of vital import in someone’s life will literally rest in my hands. I have no one else to turn to and slag off my responsibility.

So I can cower in fear and be a $hitty doctor or I can accept the reality and do what it takes to be worthy of and do well by my responsibility.

I can only imagine the magnitude of certain decisions doctors must make when peoples’ health and even their lives are affected by risky, or not so clear, decisions, especially if that decision ultimately ended in failure, and you have to live with that failure. It’s just reality, and a kind of reality many people don’t want to face and a big reason, I think, that many people turn to a “higher power” that has some sort of plan or purpose, rather than senseless chaos.

Kalam is just one example that illustrates the thinking of apologists like WLC, and pseudo-apologists like Zach who ape him. Though the thrust of our discussion here hasn’t been Kalam, the basic structure is the same – an apologist making assertions that go against what has been observed in reality that they have no direct evidence for, so they search for evidence that’s not there and ending up “forcing” evidence, like pounding a square peg into a round hole. That’s why nearly all of their arguments are laced with logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and outright dishonesty.

What’s worse is when they use their unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims as proof of their god’s existence.

At the end, if any of them ever attempt to be intellectually honest, the only recourse they have is to admit that it’s all a matter of faith and it’s something they cannot outwardly demonstrate. I wish more theists could admit that, because though I think that belief is crazy, at least I can respect their honesty, which is always a nice change of pace.

I’m always fascinated by the minds that can do that. Because I know that at least the majority of them are genuine. I simply can’t imagine thinking that way. So it makes me wonder what it is like to be in their shoes and not be able to imagine thinking the way that I do.

Because on some level they actually are just as right as we are. They are not deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive us. This is how they genuinely think and the same way I cannot fathom how to “just believe” something genuinely, I must assume that they cannot fathom how to not use “something else” to “know” things that reflect reality.

It’s back to that Sam Harris quote – what evidence to you show someone to convince them, if they don’t value evidence? What logic can you use with someone who doesn’t value (or in this case understand) logic?

So by the same token, to play a bit of devil’s advocate, since it is we who assert that free will is an illusion and that there is no extrinsic immutable and objective standard by which to measure ourselves is it actually appropriate to consider them – any of them – “crazy”?

We can certainly say they do not conform as well to repeatable reality as we do. And it is Feynman who said “that which I cannot repeat, I cannot understand” after all. It is very feasible that we are repeatable but not accurate. However, since we are consistently inaccurate, we are at a relative peak. I would argue our peak (and take that to mean the general peak of “humanity” however you may want to reasonable and charitably define it) is higher (better) than theirs. But I cannot say ours is the highest possible. We just don’t know.

BTW – I do tend believe we live in a purely deterministic universe, which includes our so-called “free will.” However, this is still a probabalistic universe with an intrinsic level of uncertainty by definition. And compilex enough that, just like evolution makes a bird’s wing look intelligently designed, we are living in a universe such that the probability functions of complex systems rapidly extend towards infinity and thus we have a very solid illusion of free will. I further believe that this illusion is not only entirely sufficient but truly no better option exists than such a reality. And if I am wrong, it is probably by a mostly negligible amount of error which will eventually, hopefully, lay within the intrinsic uncertainty of the fabric of the cosmos.

LOL. I don’t have clinic tomorrow and but I probably shouldn’t stay up late with a vodka soda and wax poetic any longer.

“Because we are talking about values, a moral principle can never be a completely empirical fact, and therefore cannot be completely determined by scientific investigation.”

I’m inclined to believe that science, in principal, should be able to cover everything within a naturalistic worldview. I steal a bit from Gregory Dawes here, but that definition includes not only tangible physical entities, but also existential or causal phenomenon that somehow supervenes upon or are realized by physical things (and is therefore subject to empirical investigation through their observable effects). Love, hate, confidence, locus of control and morality should then be well within the purview of naturalistic explanations.

We have plenty of research that examine phenomenon similar to phenomenon mentioned above. True, these are latent and not observable variables, but I don’t think that hurts their validity. I’d even argue that the tendency for distinct societies to repeat certain moral codes is indicative of objective morality (Michael Shermer has this list in one of his books). I think ultimately morals are useful heuristics, that is context-dependent but nonetheless objective and much like Sam Harris, agree it’s useful for science to throw itself in the ring to find it.

Thanks for that post, Doc. It is refreshing when this subject is approached with reason and logic (as well as respect and constraint) from a man of science. Having recently read Harris’ book on value creation, I’ve had enough of scientific over-reach into the area of ethics. Of course its not that science has no place in the discussion, but that ultimately logic and reason are needed to sort everything out, frame the discussion, evaluate the arguments (and evaluate the science).

Zach says: “Well, I am not trying to be stubborn headed, I am convinced on what I am convinced on and so are you. We are in the process of dialog and trying to convince each other of our own views. If this isn’t your thing you don’t have to jump in, but I for one REALLY enjoy it. If it wasn’t for my skeptic/agnostic friend, I would not have the interest in these conversations I do today. Iron sharpness iron and all that sort of thing. So I enjoy these conversations – they can get a bit heated, but it’s a discipline to not confuse disagreement with stupidity and get frustrated over the fact that someone doesn’t agree with you. If someone doesn’t at least understand my point of view I strive to not get frustrated with them, but work at being a better communicator. Now if someone understands my view and disagrees, well that is what it is and is still usually profitable conversation.
The best conversations are ones that are actual conversations – as opposed to games of “Gotcha”, which usually is what internet conversations turn into – hence why I am trying to shy away from commentators here who simply just want to argue and not have a friendly conversation.”
You filthy,intellectually dishonest , Gish galloping, nit picking , horrible hypocrite ( that was an intentional ad hominem , I hate your guts)
You want no part in proper discussions,all you care about is games of GOTCHA.
All you do is nit pick people’s arguments
For statements you can use your circular,irrational , broken logic on.
And then Gish gallop like a jockey chased by wolves.
You sir are a yellow belly and I hope you burn in the hell you believe in because my hell is to nice for you

I agree with most of what you have written. I think trying to obtain “absolute” knowledge of morality is extremely tricky. However, I must disagree with you on your assertion that it is literally impossible for there to be an objective morality. I think there are possible worlds that can be imagined in which an absolute morality could exist. Now, that is not to say that such a possible world is probably, but it is at least possible.

I do not think any more coherent points can be made unless morality is defined.

I would define morality as: a code of behavior about what you are supposed to do.

Now, in order for my definition of morality to exist, then there has to be some sort of teleological end to the world. This would be a universe with an end in mind. Further, this universe must contain beings with enough agency to qualify as “moral agents.” One could easily imagine a designed universe, with an end in mind, that does not contain creatures capable of moral agency. This could be something like a clockwork universe, where every event was planned by some designer before its inception.

So, this universe must have:

a: An end in mind.

and

b: Moral agents.

I think at least these two basic things are necessary for a universe such as I propose to exist.

These moral agents do not have to be totally free, but they must be free enough to either freely perform an action, or refrain from performing that action They may be motivated in certain direction, and thus not be totally free, but they must have at least this.

Now, beings in this universe may very well have certain duties and obligations that they are called upon to perform. They also might have certain taboos of behavior that they should avoid.

Perhaps the designer of this universe wants to create free beings that may possibly reject the end-goal of his design. Perhaps the designer of this universe thinks that beings who are cooperating freely with his master plan is a preferable scenario to having automatons that merely do his will.

I think such a universe is logically possible.

PROBLEMS:

You mentioned the Euthyphro dilemma. I think that this is indeed an interesting problem. But I do not think it provides logical proof for the impossibility of a world where objective morality might exist. I think this dilemma only provides a thought experiment on what exactly is the nature and origin of morality.

Perhaps morality is just brute a fact about the universe. Leibniz once asked “why is there something instead of nothing?” Even if you say “God made everything” that leads to the question “why does God exist?” You might respond that God is a necessary being. But even if things are necessary, either the universe itself, or God, that still does not answer “why is there something instead of nothing?”

Perhaps non-existence is not possible. But whatever necessarily exists just exists. It has no reason for it’s existence, other than “it cannot be other.”

Perhaps morality is like that. If God is necessary, and cannot not exist, perhaps whatever his nature is, is the grounding for moral actions. If God exists, and he has a certain type of nature, his nature would inform the types of restrictions or duties he places on free beings he might create.

You might point out that rejecting such a being’s ideas of what should and should not be done is possible. If you were a creature designed by this being, you might even justify why you would reject his moral prescriptions. However, at least according to my earlier definition of morality, you would not invalidate the objectiveness of morality by doing so. You would not have the power to alter the teleology of the world you found yourself in, and thus could not affect what you were “supposed to do” according to the plan of that world.

Now, the world I have envisioned is certainly possible, even if it highly contrived and improbable. So, at least, objective morality is possible.

We may not be able to explain, as you correctly illustrated in the Euthyphro, what exactly is the nature and origin of this morality. ( I think we can try as I illustrated above)

But I think such questions as “why does anything exist at all instead of nothing?” are just as vexing, and still yet unsolved.

Ask yourself: Why is there matter? Why does the law of gravity have the force it does instead of a stronger force? These are just brute facts. Who knows? Maybe they are just necessary and cannot be other. But why is that?

Anyway, I love your work. You have saved me money, as I no longer waste my money on pseudo scientific medicine. A man who saves another man money is called his friend. Keep crusading for truth.